Posted on 09/15/2019 8:10:21 AM PDT by NorseViking
KYIV, Ukraine (AP) — The Ukrainian president's envoy for peace talks with Russia-backed separatists expressed concern Friday that the leaders of France and Germany will push Ukraine to make unacceptable concessions to Russia.
Ukraine and Russia have been locked in a bitter standoff since 2014, when Russia annexed the Crimean Peninsula and threw its weight behind separatists in eastern Ukraine. Hopes for a solution to the separatist conflict in eastern Ukraine, which has claimed more than 13,000 lives, were revived after political novice Volodymyr Zelenskiy was elected Ukrainian president in April.
But his envoy, Leonid Kuchma, told The Associated Press he is concerned that France and Germany, who are mediating the talks, will push President Zelenskiy to make trade-offs, such as approving a plan for the separatists to hold local elections in the areas they control without any oversight by the Ukrainian government.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Who cares what Gorbachev speaks now? But that’s of course another lie. Here is another link for you.
“Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/";.
President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”)
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO
This latter idea of special status for the GDR territory was codified in the final German unification treaty signed on September 12, 1990, by the Two-Plus-Four foreign ministers (see Document 25). The former idea about “closer to the Soviet borders” is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures.
Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face with Gorbachev.
Afterwards, Baker wrote to Helmut Kohl who would meet with the Soviet leader on the next day, with much of the very same language. Baker reported: “And then I put the following question to him [Gorbachev]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options [….] He then added, ‘Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’” Baker added in parentheses, for Kohl’s benefit, “By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable.” (See Document 8)
Well-briefed by the American secretary of state, the West German chancellor understood a key Soviet bottom line, and assured Gorbachev on February 10, 1990: “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.” (See Document 9)
There are much more at link but that doesn’t even change much. The problem in this case is the expansion of NATO by itself which wasn’t justified at all.
“” “” All your speaking for me is a strawman. “” “”
LOL. The best way to get out of discussion when out of legit arguments.
Sweet! A condescending freeper who’s as elitist and as big a jerk as the Sidwell friends he purports to disdain. Well played, FRiend. (sarc off)
Oh, and on a completely unrelated note, are you really from Benbecula? Just curious.
There’s one legit argument and it’s the principle of an agreement between nations.
How that is labeled not legit is nothing short of bizarre.
The same applies to NATO expansion eastwards, proliferation of missile defence and intermediate missiles and so on.
Bottomline the source of Ukrainian problems now is a foreign sponsored coup removing a duly elected leader and capturing power by a group which is not at the least supported by half of the country.
It is wrongly portrayed as a Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
It is not without parallels in history. Moldova is a nice example for them down to near a minor detail.
Now broken and abandoned by all parties after ‘European choice’ played. Officially the poorest nation in Europe.
“the source of Ukrainian problems now is a foreign-sponsored coup removing a duly elected leader...”
Wrong. Their elected leader fled from his very expensive suburban estate with a private zoo in the dead of night after months of peaceful protests in the center of the capital, Kiev.
Now I understand exactly what you’re doing as that’s always the same BS repeated over and over and a rich departure from the truth. The bum, an outright criminal fled to Putin because he couldn’t handle the people rising up in a peaceful protest for months in the dead cold of winter.
Those people took the cold and bullets from tyrants. Yes, tyrants get elected or sometimes almost elected with a little bit of extra ballot help.
I am not arguing Yanukovich was saint but that is how their country works so far.
Have you been in a residence of his replacement?
Are you sure he don’t have his own zoo?
What was the rating of Poroshenko during last days of his presidency? Was he any more popular than Yanukovich?
Ukraine has a democratic election and new leadership. Their borders and sovereignty should be respected as with any nation.
“” “” Ukraine has a democratic election and new leadership. Their borders and sovereignty should be respected as with any nation.”” “”
All moot points. They don’t have middle class and for that reason a candidate with the most lavish campaign and the most populist platform wins. Kind of like Latin America. That is how Yanukovich and then Poroshenko won. Only technically these are fair elections but in nature they are not.
As for borders you are right generally. Although there are people who think otherwise. Did you think the same about Serbia and Kosovo?
My grandmother's family were Russian ethnic and Russian Orthodox, living near Lvov. In the early 1900s, their whole community came to the US. That was because Poles were crossing into the area. How much of Ukraine is actually Ukranian?
How much of Ukraine would be worse off if the mess were partitioned? Just a crazy thought.
“” “” How much of Ukraine would be worse off if the mess were partitioned? Just a crazy thought.”” “”
Earler on this tread I offered a scientific explaination of what and why there is Ukraine. In short a retread Zaporozhskaya Secha - a post medieval Cossak statelet from lower Dniepr living off piracy and racket. Their main occupation was robbing Turkish towns around Black Sea coast and accasional raids on Polish villages. They were merely tolerated by Russia for the purpose of containment of Turkey and Poland but after what Catherine the Great did to Turkey in Poland in 1700s both weren’t a threat anymore and Secha outlived its usefulness and died off becoming a part of Russia.
Nobody really missed it including former residents. Its idea was revived as Ukraine in earlier 20th century by Lenin and his Commie pals with the purpose to incite as much unrest as possible. Lenin and Bolsheviks who as we know now were German spies hated Russia with all fibers of their filthy souls and in line with German intelligence developed a slogan: ‘Russia is a prison of nations!’ They played Ukraine along with other mostly Western Russian minorities the way the left plays minorities in US. That is basically the whole story although I admit I had it simplified for better comprehension. The idea is still that.
They hate this one:)
Thanks for that summary. It does answer my maybe no so crazy question.
Not really that much...
John McCain tells Ukraine protesters: ‘We are here to support your just cause’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/john-mccain-ukraine-protests-support-just-cause
Your last link doesn’t work.
““” “” Ukraine has a democratic election and new leadership. Their borders and sovereignty should be respected as with any nation.”” “”
“All moot points.”
Hardly.
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.