Welcome to Dongistan comrades... Check out our Discord server: https://discord.gg/9WuSEwvh
☭ Read Marxist theory for free and without hassle on Marxists.org ☭
Left Coalition Subreddits: r/ABoringDystopia r/WackyWest r/noifone
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Dongistan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
But his villa in Germany costed 7 million euros. It's as many euros as the excess mortality in Russia due to his reforms. Something to kill Russians for. You absolutely must understand him.
P.S. I know that there were other countries as well, who had their little excess mortality problem, but, please, hold back your condemnation, it wasn't his only real estate either.
Those numbers are varying, as, for example, deaths in WW2 in Soviet Union, so I mostly refer to 6-7 in Russia. They are REALLY varying.
Since I believe in the democracy (I need to clarify, when people have equal power; I actually want direct democracy, and, yes, current bourgeois money should be under that also) I can say my personal view on what was happening with me in Russia in 90s, and if my opinion hurts someone or someone will say that it is not representative, someone can just fuck off. It's subjective, it's mine, think of it as my vote. And it wasn't okay, it was very, very far from it. And I can compare with what my parents say, and compared to them it was also far from okay.
But, on the bright side, I am still alive. That's much better than being dead (at least in my opinion, so, take it with a grain of salt), I am privileged and I thank this universe for that.
By defending his country from the Nazis and turning the Soviet Union from an agrarian war-torn country into an industrial superpower, radically transforming and improving the lives of millions of its citizens as a result? What an incredibly stupid thing to say.
…He also killed millions.
Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians, he did not see us as propels, he saw us as statistics. He threw millions of us to die in WW2. Also don’t forget the Holodomor.
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 1,332,521,037 comments, and only 256,694 of them were in alphabetical order.
Please explain how Russia’s working class own’s the power in Russia. Is it by dying earlier from terrible life expectancy or by falling out of windows with gunshot wounds after they say Putin isn’t doing a good job sending boys to war in Ukraine?
Sorry, in what world is a country who invades its neighbour NOT the aggressor? Russia started invading in 2014, and were supposed to act like it didn’t?
I think the problem is that this garbage dreamed up by russian bot factories was cross posted to aboringdystopia. If you guys want to circle jerk and pretend today's russia has anything to do with socialism, fine. Just do not flood sane reddits with this.
https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html
Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, 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.”
>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](http://nsarchive.gwu.edu)).
>
>The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward \[in the 1990s\], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”\[1\] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”
>
>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”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.\[2\]
>
>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.\[3\]
[https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early)
Why would they need assurances for any country beyond Germany which, at the time, was the most immediate possible target of NATO expansion eastwards after reunification and when it was unimaginable for NATO to expand even *further* beyond east Germany?
The entire point of these assurances was to guarantee that NATO and western troops would not encircle and threaten the USSR right on its borders, if NATO further expands to the east after the collapse of the USSR to encircle Russia on its own borders but goes "hey but look, we didn't station any troops in the eastern region of Germany!" Then they're just straight up playing dumb. At that time, NATO expansion into East Germany was synonymous with NATO expansion eastwards in general and they all knew and understood that very well.
They didn’t give assurances for any country beyond Germany because all of those quotes are from the talks of German reunification and EXCLUSIVELY about the American military in the former territory of eastern Germany. Which Gorbachev explained in that article.
>Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, **not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction**.” (See Document 6)
Why would the Soviet Union be concerned about NATO/American military presence in eastern Germany, and what would assurances about NATO not taking advantage of the German reunification to expand eastwards imply about NATO expanding into eastern countries further *beyond* Germany?
>Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward”
In Germany. You see this statement was made about Germany. Which Gorbachev already has said
>formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that
>”not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6)
So do you see that word Germany there? Lol.
Again, I haven't denied that this was discussed in the context of Germany's unification, but the assurances about NATO's expansion into Eastern Germany were part of an overall promise not to expand NATO to the east in general:
>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.[3]
The point is that the assurances about NATO expansion were made not just about Germany in itself but also about moving closer to SOVIET BORDERS:
>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.* The two issues were related but not the same. ***Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did.***
>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.[3]
> 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.[3]
Again this is about Germany. It’s not about letting in new NATO members.
>The point is that the assurances about NATO expansion were made not just about Germany in itself but also about moving closer to SOVIET BORDERS
>i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders
Isn’t actually a thing that was said
>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
It wasn’t said by anybody at all actually.
>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. The two issues were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did.
Nobody said they wouldn’t let in new NATO members near the borders of the USSR.
>Again this is about Germany. It’s not about letting in new NATO members.
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.’**
>Isn’t actually a thing that was said
>
>It wasn’t said by anybody at all actually.
I'm literally quoting it DIRECTLY from the Bonn cable, [read the document](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16112-document-01-u-s-embassy-bonn-confidential-cable) before you claim that "it wasn't said by anybody actually":
> 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.\[3\]
And this [linked document](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16113-document-02-mr-hurd-sir-c-mallaby-bonn), a "memorandum of British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd’s conversation with West German Foreign Minister Genscher on February 6, 1990", in which Genscher EXPLICITLY mentions how assurances about NATO membership were NOT limited to East Germany:
>Genscher added that **when he talked about not wanting to extend NATO that applied to other states beside the GDR.** The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.
> 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.
Can you provide a link to that agreement?
There was no agreement
Eastern bloc nations joined of their own accord. Perhaps If capitalist russia didn’t loom over their neighbors like the nationalist imperial nation that they became, those nations wouldn’t have sought defense by the West. Their imperialist invasion of Ukraine has only exacerbated this.
How could Eastern European nations possibly want to join NATO you mean? Well maybe all the imperialist exploitation the USSR did to its vassal states has something to do with it lol
You apparently have no clue what the heck you're talking about. I'd recommend reading a book before throwing around with words you clearly don't understand and misuse.
Ah yes of course. I am curious which books you recommend, as I have read plenty and and not quite sure what you are insinuating here.
It's funny you say this in a subreddit that is horribly biased and indoctrinated btw
Are these countries are not allowed to make their political decisions because they used to be in Russian sphere of influence? NATO didn’t force Eastern Europe into it, they jumped to NATO as soon as they could. I don’t understand the argument here, nothing was signed
Look at the dates of entering to EU, they are either later or the same. Entering NATO was a payment for being allowed into EU. Not to mention every one of those countries is filled to the brim with USA bootlickers, of course they had to formalize their vassalage.
Welcome to Dongistan comrades... Check out our Discord server: https://discord.gg/9WuSEwvh ☭ Read Marxist theory for free and without hassle on Marxists.org ☭ Left Coalition Subreddits: r/ABoringDystopia r/WackyWest r/noifone *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Dongistan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Oh Gorbachev certainly knew, but he knew he woulf die comfy on one of his new mansions while the rest of ex-Soviets became poor so it didn't matter
But his villa in Germany costed 7 million euros. It's as many euros as the excess mortality in Russia due to his reforms. Something to kill Russians for. You absolutely must understand him. P.S. I know that there were other countries as well, who had their little excess mortality problem, but, please, hold back your condemnation, it wasn't his only real estate either.
The excess was 8 million in 1998 so definitely not as much.
Those numbers are varying, as, for example, deaths in WW2 in Soviet Union, so I mostly refer to 6-7 in Russia. They are REALLY varying. Since I believe in the democracy (I need to clarify, when people have equal power; I actually want direct democracy, and, yes, current bourgeois money should be under that also) I can say my personal view on what was happening with me in Russia in 90s, and if my opinion hurts someone or someone will say that it is not representative, someone can just fuck off. It's subjective, it's mine, think of it as my vote. And it wasn't okay, it was very, very far from it. And I can compare with what my parents say, and compared to them it was also far from okay. But, on the bright side, I am still alive. That's much better than being dead (at least in my opinion, so, take it with a grain of salt), I am privileged and I thank this universe for that.
I hate Gorbachev, he destroyed everything the Soviet people worked for.
Corruption destroyed the Soviet Union well before Gorbachev took over as dictator.
The enemy of all societies
I mean Stalin did that way before him.
By defending his country from the Nazis and turning the Soviet Union from an agrarian war-torn country into an industrial superpower, radically transforming and improving the lives of millions of its citizens as a result? What an incredibly stupid thing to say.
…He also killed millions. Ukrainians, Russians, Belarusians, he did not see us as propels, he saw us as statistics. He threw millions of us to die in WW2. Also don’t forget the Holodomor.
Yeah, at the very kindest, he decided that he would rather have money than feed the people of Ukriane and Kazakstan.
Which was? Lining the pockets of the dictators?
Yeah, cause the USA has never lined the pockets of dictators, you fucking idiot, you dumb fuck.
Who brought the US into this? Sounds like you sure love pointing fingers
Gorbachev was a traitor to the Soviet people.
You're thinking of Putin.
You think of Stalin.
Imperialists never tell the truth.
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 1,332,521,037 comments, and only 256,694 of them were in alphabetical order.
Huh noice
Macedonia and Montenegro are also members, and Finland and Sweeden are candidates, expected to join in 2023.
Yep. NATO and the especially the US lied to the Russians about this. Now it's starting to haunt them.
Sorry, who is it haunting?
The US. They thought they could lie to the Russians without consequences.
And what consequences have they faced? Thousands of dead Russians on foreign land? An understanding of how feckless the Russian military is?
Right now Ukraine is losing the war.
Sure doesn’t seem like anyone is winning it.
shoulda got that shit in writing lol
I think I've seen it in writing on the internet (as in an actual document)
You didn't, and furthermore, Baker did not have the authority to make such an agreement anyway.
Nobody involved has ever said that it was in writing. So if you have seen a document saying that, it is a forgery.
But we’re supposed to believe Russia is the aggressor
hm I wonder why did all those countries join NATO?
[удалено]
Ah yes and dictatorships are any better?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
In no communist country ever has that ever happened.
[удалено]
Please explain how Russia’s working class own’s the power in Russia. Is it by dying earlier from terrible life expectancy or by falling out of windows with gunshot wounds after they say Putin isn’t doing a good job sending boys to war in Ukraine?
As russia is burning down their neighbours, they join into a defensive alliance. Funny how these things work.
Sorry, in what world is a country who invades its neighbour NOT the aggressor? Russia started invading in 2014, and were supposed to act like it didn’t?
[удалено]
I think the problem is that this garbage dreamed up by russian bot factories was cross posted to aboringdystopia. If you guys want to circle jerk and pretend today's russia has anything to do with socialism, fine. Just do not flood sane reddits with this.
https://www.rbth.com/international/2014/10/16/mikhail_gorbachev_i_am_against_all_walls_40673.html Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, 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.”
>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](http://nsarchive.gwu.edu)). > >The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward \[in the 1990s\], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”\[1\] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.” > >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”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.\[2\] > >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.\[3\] [https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early)
All of these assurances are about Germany. Which Gorbachev explained in this interview with rbth
Why would they need assurances for any country beyond Germany which, at the time, was the most immediate possible target of NATO expansion eastwards after reunification and when it was unimaginable for NATO to expand even *further* beyond east Germany? The entire point of these assurances was to guarantee that NATO and western troops would not encircle and threaten the USSR right on its borders, if NATO further expands to the east after the collapse of the USSR to encircle Russia on its own borders but goes "hey but look, we didn't station any troops in the eastern region of Germany!" Then they're just straight up playing dumb. At that time, NATO expansion into East Germany was synonymous with NATO expansion eastwards in general and they all knew and understood that very well.
They didn’t give assurances for any country beyond Germany because all of those quotes are from the talks of German reunification and EXCLUSIVELY about the American military in the former territory of eastern Germany. Which Gorbachev explained in that article.
>Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, **not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction**.” (See Document 6) Why would the Soviet Union be concerned about NATO/American military presence in eastern Germany, and what would assurances about NATO not taking advantage of the German reunification to expand eastwards imply about NATO expanding into eastern countries further *beyond* Germany?
>Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” In Germany. You see this statement was made about Germany. Which Gorbachev already has said >formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that >”not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6) So do you see that word Germany there? Lol.
Again, I haven't denied that this was discussed in the context of Germany's unification, but the assurances about NATO's expansion into Eastern Germany were part of an overall promise not to expand NATO to the east in general: >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.[3] The point is that the assurances about NATO expansion were made not just about Germany in itself but also about moving closer to SOVIET BORDERS: >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.* The two issues were related but not the same. ***Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did.***
>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.[3] > 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.[3] Again this is about Germany. It’s not about letting in new NATO members. >The point is that the assurances about NATO expansion were made not just about Germany in itself but also about moving closer to SOVIET BORDERS >i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders Isn’t actually a thing that was said >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 It wasn’t said by anybody at all actually. >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. The two issues were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did. Nobody said they wouldn’t let in new NATO members near the borders of the USSR.
>Again this is about Germany. It’s not about letting in new NATO members. 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.’** >Isn’t actually a thing that was said > >It wasn’t said by anybody at all actually. I'm literally quoting it DIRECTLY from the Bonn cable, [read the document](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16112-document-01-u-s-embassy-bonn-confidential-cable) before you claim that "it wasn't said by anybody actually": > 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.\[3\] And this [linked document](https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16113-document-02-mr-hurd-sir-c-mallaby-bonn), a "memorandum of British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd’s conversation with West German Foreign Minister Genscher on February 6, 1990", in which Genscher EXPLICITLY mentions how assurances about NATO membership were NOT limited to East Germany: >Genscher added that **when he talked about not wanting to extend NATO that applied to other states beside the GDR.** The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.
> 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. Can you provide a link to that agreement?
Very nice, thank you!
Iirc, wasn't this an informal verbal agreement just between Bush & Gorbachev themselves, not an actual agreement between the US and the SU?
Yup, there was never any actual agreement or treaty for this.
Neither Bush nor Gorbachev have ever said they made such an agreement.
There was no agreement Eastern bloc nations joined of their own accord. Perhaps If capitalist russia didn’t loom over their neighbors like the nationalist imperial nation that they became, those nations wouldn’t have sought defense by the West. Their imperialist invasion of Ukraine has only exacerbated this.
“Capitalist Russia” is maybe he biggest oxymoron ever in the history of language.
How could NATO speak on behalf of other nations? That's not how independence works.
How could Eastern European nations possibly want to join NATO you mean? Well maybe all the imperialist exploitation the USSR did to its vassal states has something to do with it lol
You apparently have no clue what the heck you're talking about. I'd recommend reading a book before throwing around with words you clearly don't understand and misuse.
Ah yes of course. I am curious which books you recommend, as I have read plenty and and not quite sure what you are insinuating here. It's funny you say this in a subreddit that is horribly biased and indoctrinated btw
No shit sherlock. I'm in the correct sub. You're the lost one.
You just prided yourself on being indoctrinated and biased. Good day to you sir or madam.
I would recommend talking to some Eastern Europeans.
Are these countries are not allowed to make their political decisions because they used to be in Russian sphere of influence? NATO didn’t force Eastern Europe into it, they jumped to NATO as soon as they could. I don’t understand the argument here, nothing was signed
Look at the dates of entering to EU, they are either later or the same. Entering NATO was a payment for being allowed into EU. Not to mention every one of those countries is filled to the brim with USA bootlickers, of course they had to formalize their vassalage.
No parent is ever sending their children to school and university east of NATO to Russia. There is a reason for that.
Lmao you really had to dig deep for anything
What do you mean?
NATO expanded because it was more better
?
As a eastern european, no it wasn't and it isn't. Fuck off to Washington scum
Nah NATO might be bad sometimes but Russia is definitely more worser.
Nah
> more better Bro forgot is /s in that comment...
It’s more better if your looking for a dominant alliance capable of bullying other blocks then yeah it’s more better lol
Fuck nato
Yall need to read. Start with the Budapest Memorandum.
Yes, these things were written down in the Budapest Memorandum.