Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

Rate this topic


AlexL
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

 

This is exactly the same - disinformation - method used by RT with the RAND Corporation's report/advise about how to avoid a deliberate Russian escalation: cherry picking from the report and avoiding to link to the report itself.

Therefore: it wasn't me who was "Unable or lazy to follow up for yourself" - I did the necessary. You, however, instead of summarizing yourself the Matlock article, as objectivity would demand, you presented instead its RT rendering, while being fully aware of RT's nature as a propaganda outlet.

Objectivity is, visibly, not your approach. Should be obvious to anyone by now.

"Avoiding to link to the report itself".

False. I linked the entire report here, a few days ago. As I thought, you don't open and read and think over my suggested links, but prefer to attack the 'book cover' while evading the conceptual contents.

And it is not up to me to summarize, nor in any way, to influence, readers here. Those others with independent minds can draw their own conclusions. As objectivity would demand.

Here is RAND again, on "overextending and unbalancing Russia".

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwikl8jW1O76AhUYhP0HHV33DKYQFnoECBAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.rand.org%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Frand%2Fpubs%2Fresearch_briefs%2FRB10000%2FRB10014%2FRAND_RB10014.pdf&usg=AOvVaw20gfMooZk2oSGu4PL84GLT

A sample. That reveals how peaceable, innocent and benign the neocon RandCorp (and NATO, by extension) has been [Not]
Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit
Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But
any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to
Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to
increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing
commitment without provoking a much wider conflict
in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have
significant advantages

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A pretty good summary of the RAND report, imo. The conclusion of an essay "How to Destroy Russia" by Manar Salameh and Amer Dawa.

Notice how the writers are attuned to the "price in sacrifices"-

 

"By calibrating each option to gain the desired effect – conclude the Rand analysts – Russia would end up by paying the hardest price in a confrontation, but the USA would also have to invest huge resources, which would therefore no longer be available for other objectives. This is also prior warning of a coming major increase in USA/NATO military spending, to the disadvantage of social budgets.

This is the future that is planned out for us by the Rand Corporation, the most influential think tank of the Deep State – in other words the underground center of real power gripped by the economic, financial, and military oligarchies – which determines the strategic choices not only of the USA, but all of the Western world.

The “options” set out by the plan are in reality no more than variants of the same war strategy, of which the price in sacrifices and risks is paid by us all".

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

There's an incapacity by nearly all to "see" things from Russia's point of view.

I make a clear distinction between the "Russia's point of view" (that is Russia's legitimate interests), and Putin's personal interests.

Russia, and any other country, has a vital interest in its security. This means that it should legitimately be apprehensive about having in its vicinity countries/regimes/alliances with recent history, or a credible present threat, of aggression, territorial expansion and/or subjugation.

Russia: Looking at Russia's chart and its neighbors, I don't see in its vicinity countries/regimes/blocks with recent history (or a credible present threat) of aggression, territorial expansion and/or subjugation. Not even China, for the near and medium future.

As for NATO - it does NOT represent, objectively speaking, a credible threat - originated in recent history (or a credible present threat) of aggression, territorial expansion and/or subjugation.

As for Russia's neighbors : Russia does have a recent history of aggressions, territorial expansion and subjugation, but I don't believe this is inherent to Russia (same for any other country). It depends on the political regime and the personalities at the top. Germany and Japan are clear proof.

On the other hand, Putin, the current Russia's leader, enacted, during his 20+ years reign:

- a regime change towards more and more authoritarianism and power grab,

- and developed a concept of his own about what the Russia's true interest demand: the concept of the "Russian World" (Русский Мир) and the follow-up concept of "Historical Russia" (Историческая Россия). These are not confidential ideas, but ones that Putin publicly expressed in speeches and articles; they can be found on his kremlin.ru presidential site, both in Russian and in English.

The first concept boil down to the claim that ethnic Russians, Byelorussians and Ukrainians living in the respective countries are in fact the same Russian people which were forcibly separated by the vicissitudes of history. He claims that they all speak the same language, with only minute differences. Also, they have the same religion (Christian Orthodox). He inferred from the above that they should all live in the same country. The tribalist nature of these arguments is plainly visible.

The second concept, the one of "Historical Russia" expands on the first. It demands that all ethic Russians (meaning also Ukrainians and Byelorussians), wherever they live at present, should all live in the same country, with the same religion and under the same head of state ("prince"). Putin dated precisely when in the past this was the case - end of the 18th century. Regarding its Western borders, this means the whole Baltic, the whole of Belarus and most of Ukraine.

The above are Putin's own conceptions of Russia's interests - imperialist and tribalist. Accordingly, he ferociously opposes anything that would hinder such plans, the main hindrance being Ukraine acquiring some sort of protection from the West, NATO membership included.

In conclusion: 

- Putin has big plans of imperialist nature (which he doesn't even hide !). The implementation of these plans becomes impossible in its main point (Ukraine), if Ukraine can defend itself, alone or in cooperation. 

- Accession of Ukraine to NATO umbrella (with or without membership) is a danger, but not for Russia, but for Putin, more precisely for the plans he openly announced and that are sketched above. IOW, he opposes NATO expansion to the East not necessarily because he truly believes NATO will attack, occupy and plunder Russia (as Putin and his propaganda machine constantly repeats - including on this OO-sit !), but because it definitively cancels his plans.

Specific references: upon request. Some might exist only in Russian, but with Google Translate Add-ons it won't be a problem

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

"Avoiding to link to the report itself".

False. I linked the entire report here [...]

YOU did, but RT did NOT, and it was about RT that I said it is "avoiding to link to the report itself" - in  articles purported to summaries the Matlock article and RAND Corporation report respectively.

You should read more carefully what is written, especially when you object to it. This time I'll assume you simply misread and not that you deliberately misrepresented.

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And it is not up to me to summarize, nor in any way, to influence, readers here.

Sure, you prefer to present here the cherry picked "summarizing" by RT - a partisan publication by design and "a weapon in the information war" by its own admission [*]

-------

[*] https://medium.com/dfrlab/question-that-rts-military-mission-4c4bd9f72c88

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Are you suggesting that because there are no links, the remarks quoted by RT attributed to Matlock might not even be spoken by him!? Made up, in fact?

"Seen through the eyes of the RT..." ... Not a word RT publishes is credible...

I am suggesting nothing of the kind ! What made you think this ? Please quote me where you believe I suggested this ! Again: please don't misrepresent my opinions.

Quote

If you found other pertinent remarks and "some opinions" which were not reported, that indeed contradict Matlock's core statement and which "RT didn't want the readers to be aware of" - show them. I'm waiting to see.

Fair enough. I will show some of Matlock's evaluation which RT deemed unnecessary to report (exactly as it did with its summary of RAND Corporation advice, some of which I signaled at that time). I will do it in a separate post.

RT is acting conforming exactly to its mission - a weapon in the information war. Nothing else is to be expected, for example objectivity. This is why it is not a reliable source of information and a minimum of intellect would dictate avoiding it : one cannot know what of it is true, what is false, what is incomplete etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

If you found other pertinent remarks and "some opinions" which were not reported, that indeed contradict Matlock's core statement and which "RT didn't want the readers to be aware of" - show them. I'm waiting to see.

Here are some of Matlock's evaluation on which RT deemed unnecessary to report:

  • "The Russian annexation of four additional Ukrainian provinces blocks compromise solutions that were feasible earlier... Russia’s recent incorporation of four Ukrainian provinces into the Russian Federation will not be accepted by Russia’s neighbors or by most European powers."
  • "The Ukrainian attack on the bridge to Crimea gave Russia a pretext to escalate attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets."
  • "We Americans can only admire the valiant resistance Ukrainians have mounted to the Russian invasion and should be proud that we have been able to support their defense. Everything possible should be done to make sure that Ukraine survives as an independent state."

Please note that I did not express my opinion about the content of Matlock's article, only about its rendering by RT.

The Matlock's original article is easy to find by its title, "Why the US must press for a ceasefire in Ukraine". I will not put the link here, because I disagree with most of its content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

Here are some of Matlock's evaluation on which RT deemed unnecessary to report:

  • "The Russian annexation of four additional Ukrainian provinces blocks compromise solutions that were feasible earlier... Russia’s recent incorporation of four Ukrainian provinces into the Russian Federation will not be accepted by Russia’s neighbors or by most European powers."
  • "The Ukrainian attack on the bridge to Crimea gave Russia a pretext to escalate attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets."
  • "We Americans can only admire the valiant resistance Ukrainians have mounted to the Russian invasion and should be proud that we have been able to support their defense. Everything possible should be done to make sure that Ukraine survives as an independent state."

Please note that I did not express my opinion about the content of Matlock's article, only about its rendering by RT.

The Matlock's original article is easy to find by its title, "Why the US must press for a ceasefire in Ukraine". I will not put the link here, because I disagree with most of its content.

True, true and true. So what? Nothing controversial here from Matlock. And nothing that's not already been written by others and published on RT and many other sites.

But those points are hardly pertinent or newsworthy.

This quote below IS controversial and crucial, since it conflicts with the indoctrinated narrative, "an unjustified and unprovoked invasion": we know Kyiv had NOT "been willing to abide by the Minsk agreement", etc., but continued its assaults on its citizens building up the armed forces with NATO help for a greatly intensified attack early this year which would have certainly killed thousands more separatists. And by the evasion, therefore, brought an invasion upon itself, one that could have been avoided by a moral, responsible, democratic government.

This is the quotation which offends you, despite the obfuscation you've tried, because the ex-ambassador who would understand the actors and the situation well, is most probably correct and you know it but won't admit it.

There didn't have to be a war.

Kyiv and NATO are as liable as Putin, if not somewhat more. You and others want it to suit your naive, neo-mystical preconceptions, i.e. Zelensky/Ukraine is the purely innocent victim -  Putin/Russia, essential evil. No hard cognition and judgment necessary.

Dream on. Reality doesn't conform to wishes.

"The former ambassador noted that Kiev had multiple opportunities to avert war. He believes that Russia would not have sent troops into Ukraine in February if Kiev “had been willing to abide by the Minsk agreement, recognize the Donbas as an autonomous entity within Ukraine, avoid NATO military advisors, and pledge not to enter NATO.”"

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AlexL said:

RT is acting conforming exactly to its mission - a weapon in the information war. Nothing else is to be expected, for example objectivity. This is why it is not a reliable source of information and a minimum of intellect would dictate avoiding it : one cannot know what of it is true, what is false, what is incomplete etc.

The RT propaganda pales into significance next to western propaganda. They are not even close in sophisticated methods and clever insinuations, and most don't get to learn from their msm more than what is permitted.

A maximum "of intellect would dictate" reading all you find without fear. Otherwise you can't compare their accounts for the truth value.

But a strong reality-grounding is necessary.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AlexL said:

- Accession of Ukraine to NATO umbrella (with or without membership) is a danger, but not for Russia, but for Putin, more precisely for the plans he openly announced and that are sketched above. IOW, he opposes NATO expansion to the East not necessarily because he truly believes NATO will attack, occupy and plunder Russia (as Putin and his propaganda machine constantly repeats - including on this OO-sit !), but because it definitively cancels his plans.

Specific references: upon request. Some might exist only in Russian, but with Google Translate Add-ons it won't be a problem

Like you didn't see this below. Providing lethal aid to Ukraine... Nor bothered to have carefully read the RAND report, its substance evidently informing NATO's policies. I must say it was shocking to me, as if the authors celebrated the new Cold War that's likely coming. Everything is about brinkmanship, of how far "we" can risk pushing Russia without it exploding. As if they will magically predict that point for certain.

How does anyone who read this deny that exploiting Russia's vulnerability, causing it "anxiety" and generally weakening Russia in every field, has not been the singular intent of NATO since it lost its original purpose? To be followed by what? Bring Russia down, bring on its collapse to then leave it be? Ha.

Putin's "plans", imperialism - rationalist nonsense derived form texts. Clearly he has read the report and everything else from the West. He understands his country faces an existential threat. Every day brings fresh affirmation that he is not wrong.

So you've mistaken a defensive posture for an aggressive, imperialist one.

He made some conciliatory remarks about the Slavic people, and omg - he wants to invade us all!

Those ex-satellites are gone to Russia for good. Only to be taken and occupied (most impossibly) by extreme, sustained force that would drain Russia; why would Putin go where Russia is not wanted and hated? The ex-Soviets apparently have long memories of Russia that scare them still.

BUT it is clear he will consolidate and secure what the RF does have.

Worth remembering, including by his detractors who knew him well, he has been called a highly rational person. 

 

Providing lethal aid to Ukraine would exploit
Russia’s greatest point of external vulnerability. But
any increase in U.S. military arms and advice to
Ukraine would need to be carefully calibrated to
increase the costs to Russia of sustaining its existing
commitment without provoking a much wider conflict
in which Russia, by reason of proximity, would have
significant advantages.

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, whYNOT said:

[...]

First of all: you misrepresented several times what I wrote and I challenged you about that. You did not comment. Please do. And bring quotations where appropriate.

See the relevant parts below :

1.

7 hours ago, AlexL said:
10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

"Avoiding to link to the report itself".

False. I linked the entire report here [...]

YOU did, but RT did NOT, and it was about RT that I said it is "avoiding to link to the report itself" - in  articles purported to summarize the Matlock article and RAND Corporation report respectively.

2.

6 hours ago, AlexL said:
10 hours ago, whYNOT said:

Are you suggesting that because there are no links, the remarks quoted by RT attributed to Matlock might not even be spoken by him!? Made up, in fact?

"Seen through the eyes of the RT..." ... Not a word RT publishes is credible...

I am suggesting nothing of the kind ! What made you think this ? Please quote me where you believe I suggested this ! Again: please don't misrepresent my opinions.

I am waiting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, AlexL said:

First of all: you misrepresented several times what I wrote and I challenged you about that. You did not comment. Please do. And bring quotations where appropriate.

See the relevant parts below :

1.

2.

I am waiting.

Distractions again. A red herring. I said you should find me some material (not quoted by RT, I believe) "...that indeed contradict Matlock's core statement" and you quoted some pretty ordinary stuff - that is not in conflict with his core statement.

Not all facts are equal in importance. The implications of the short quote below (in RT) are huge.

(You and other Ukrainians-supporters-until-their-death-and-Putin-punishers don't want to go there, understandably).

  Here's what you can apply yourself to, against/or for: Could Matlock be RIGHT? Then as I always believed, this needless war was the deliberate doings of a slew of foul evaders.

"The former ambassador noted that Kiev had multiple opportunities to avert war. He believes that Russia would not have sent troops into Ukraine in February if Kiev “had been willing to abide by the Minsk agreement, recognize the Donbas as an autonomous entity within Ukraine, avoid NATO military advisors, and pledge not to enter NATO.”"

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...avoid NATO military advisors..."

Yes, a courageous and rational president would have told all outside interferers to go get lost.

"We Ukrainians are not going to fight your war with my people on our turf. Take it outside. I will promote peace with Donbas and Russia."

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, whYNOT said:
22 hours ago, AlexL said:

First of all: you misrepresented several times what I wrote and I challenged you about that. You did not comment. Please do. And bring quotations where appropriate.

See the relevant parts below :[...]

I am waiting.

Expand  

Distractions again.

No, it is a test of minimal honesty before I go on. You misrepresented several times what I wrote and I will not continue to interact with you until you demonstrate a minimum of honesty: show that in fact you have not misrepresented, or apologize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, AlexL said:

No, it is a test of minimal honesty before I go on. You misrepresented several times what I wrote and I will not continue to interact with you until you demonstrate a minimum of honesty: show that in fact you have not misrepresented, or apologize.

You cannot invoke honesty when you've lacked the intellectual honesty to apply your thinking to the ideas expressed (by e.g Matlock, Randcorp and many others). Not one of the links I provided - a few dozen - have gained an evaluative response from you. But you nit-pick about a news story not having links.

Quibbles about *where* the story was published, its lack of links, bla-bla, avoids rational application to the concepts wrt to reality.

"which RT deemed unnecessary to report"

"didn't want the readers to be aware of" -

is precisely one method of indoctrination - omission - suffusing western propaganda outlets. RT is only one minor voice.

When you dedicate your attention to RT, while not also applying the same standards to the vast deluge by the MSM which influences a ¬much¬ wider audience and global public opinion, and thereby, the eventual outcomes of the conflict, you lack rigor. Take any article at random from CNN, BBC or WaPo.  They constantly misrepresent - and if you don't know their anti-reality yet, the public soon will - the actuality of the war and the truth about its causes, by "the experts"'s wishful thinking produced as factual evidence, down to the concrete - "who's going to win?" (which they don't even get right, on purpose).

The effects of (specifically western) propaganda produce intellectual "cannon fodder" in masses who sponge it up and deny their minds and reality, and that results in Ukrainian and Russian deaths. Maybe further afield too. Conflict escalation, the last throw of the dice, increase the stakes when facing defeat.

Fine, cease to interact.

 

 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/18/2022 at 12:35 AM, AlexL said:

Peace talks automatically imply some give and take from both sides. The unstated, axiomatic premise of both authors is that Ukraine must give up some of its territories.  Now:

1. Why should Ukraine accept anything less than recovering the sovereignty within its full  internationally recognized 1991 borders ?

2. Putin never signaled that he would consider this solution. Why is it considered acceptable that an aggressor keeps even an inch of the conquered land ?? This is unjust and immoral.

The "aggressor" in the first instance, was Kyiv.

The questions you should be asking: How can a nation hold onto a portion of its civilians against their will, who have rejected its (unjust) governance?

To whom it has blatantly broken a treaty and possible resolution?

By subjugation and force, no other way. So an illegal and immoral war.

Ukraine lost its rights to sovereignty over some regions by its aggression and treaty violation. It invites a response from any neighbor in the vicinity who saw their dissidents' plight.

To many of concrete-minds, it is loss of "the land" which is deemed paramount. Paying little to no mind to "the people" on that land (individuals who presumably own some or much of the land) - and their rights and choices.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The questions you should be asking: How can a nation hold onto a portion of its civilians against their will, who have rejected its (unjust) governance?

Let us say that is true. Does that give a nation the right to invade? Why not just do another Crimea if that sliver is the only issue at stake.

On one hand the invasion was because the fear of NATO. Now it seems it was because Ukraine was an immoral government.

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

The "aggressor" in the first instance, was Kyiv.

Even with your description, it's aggression would be limited to it's own population. There is no aggression against another country by the Ukraine. Especially when it gave up it's nuclear missiles. And for the west, that is in fact should be the overriding issue. To defend Ukraine's integrity to prove that it is better to give up your nuclear weapons than to keep them. That is our interest at stake.

5 hours ago, whYNOT said:

To whom it has blatantly broken a treaty and possible resolution?

If there was an official treaty, you would have a case. But there is no officially recognized treaty.

If there was such a treaty, was it in secret? Was it between only two people? Two heads of state? What are we elevating to a  level of "treaty"?

The fact is that there has been a cold war going on and an official agreement needs a third party to witness. Both sides should know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy Truth, agree with almost everything you said, except

 

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

[...]

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

To whom it has blatantly broken a treaty and possible resolution?

If there was an official treaty, you would have a case. But there is no officially recognized treaty.

Minsk and Minks II were official treaties, at least because they were registered/deposited at United Nations and OSCE.

For this fact see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#External_links

For detailed information on these Agreements and the complex controversy surrounding them, see the entire Wiki article Minsk agreements. This article is the desirable starting point for those interested to form an opinion (and for those who have or express opinions on the subject).

As it is usual with Wiki, the reader should consult also the Talk page (in order to be aware of disputed points and arguments) and the references. 

Edited by AlexL
Small edit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:
20 hours ago, AlexL said:

No, it is a test of minimal honesty before I go on. You misrepresented several times what I wrote and I will not continue to interact with you until you demonstrate a minimum of honesty: show that in fact you have not misrepresented, or apologize.

You cannot invoke honesty when you've lacked the intellectual honesty to apply your thinking to the ideas expressed (by e.g Matlock, Randcorp and many others). Not one of the links I provided - a few dozen - have gained an evaluative response from you. But you nit-pick about a news story not having links.

1. My intellectual honesty does not demand that I comment on your designated subjects. I may do it - at my convenience. My intellectual honesty demands that I support, on request, the claims I've made. 

2. Your intellectual honesty does demand:

- that you abstain from ascribing me ideas I did not express and either prove that I did express them, or else apologize;

- It demands that you support, on demand, the claims you've made. 

 

3. And my alleged intellectual dishonesty does not abolish/excuses/suppresses yours (remember from elementary logic the tu quoque fallacy ?)

Regarding ascribing me ideas I did not express, you neither proved that I did express them, nor apologized.

Therefore you are lacking the minimal honesty necessary for me to discuss with you, and also don't possess the needed rationality.

This does not mean I will not discuss your posts. Therefore: make only the assertions you are capable of proving/supporting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

Easy Truth, agree with almost everything you said, except

 

Minsk and Minks II were official treaties, at least because they were registered/deposited at United Nations and OSCE.

For this fact see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_agreements#External_links

For detailed information on these Agreements and the complex controversy surrounding them, see the entire Wiki article Minsk agreements. This article is the desirable starting point for those interested to form an opinion (and for those who have or express opinions on the subject).

As it is usual with Wiki, the reader should consult also the Talk page (in order to be aware of disputed points and arguments) and the references. 

What evidence to do you have that the participants on the ‘Talk’ page practice intellectual honesty?

I’d more easily believe the presentation of certain facts if sourced through RT before I’d consider practically anything from Wikipedia , it’s become a joke reference wise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

Minsk and Minks II were official treaties, at least because they were registered/deposited at United Nations and OSCE.

I was referring to the promise that supposedly made by Bush to Putin that NATO would not expand. Meaning there was no such treaty.

As far as the Minsk Treaties, I don't mind hearing succinctly who is claimed to have breached it and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

What evidence to do you have that the participants on the ‘Talk’ page practice intellectual honesty?

I am not trying to convince you of anything. Read for yourself - the article, the Talk page and references and make yourself an opinion.

Quote

I’d more easily believe the presentation of certain facts if sourced through RT before I’d consider practically anything from Wikipedia , it’s become a joke reference wise.

Why should I care? Do as you wish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

I was referring to the promise that supposedly made by Bush to Putin that NATO would not expand. Meaning there was no such treaty.

Oh, sorry, I was convinced the context was The Minsk Accords...

The alleged promise was allegedly made in 1990 by George H. W. Bush and/or James A. Baker to the then head of USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev. Putin appeared on the scene about 10 years later.

To my knowledge and according to my research, no written agreement was established regarding the non-expansion of NATO to the former Soviet Republics or to the former Communist countries. Also, no oral assurances were really given about this.

What was indeed promised - and explicitly stated in the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany Art. 5(3) and 6, is that, after Germany reunification,

- the unified Germany is allowed to be a NATO member, however

- however, non-German NATO troops "will not move an inch" into the former East Germany,

- and no nuclear weapons will be stationed on that part of Germany.

As far as I could check, the parties fully abode ti these provisions.

BTW, the above mentioned Treaty was signed in September 1990, after the alleged promises were allegedly made about the non-expansion of NATO to other former Communist countries or to the former Soviet Republics. However, there is nothing else in that Treaty on this subject !

If you need further details and references about this dispute, please let me know.

Quote

As far as the Minsk Treaties, I don't mind hearing succinctly who is claimed to have breached it and why.

The subject of the breaching of the Minsk Accords was raised several times by whYNOT, I expressed no opinion, I only suggested a starting point, so that... try first asking him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, AlexL said:

BTW, the above mentioned Treaty was signed in September 1990, after the alleged promises were allegedly made about the non-expansion of NATO to other former Communist countries or to the former Soviet Republics. However, there is nothing else in that Treaty on this subject !

As far as I can see, a treaty with the USSR won't have much standing, since the entity (the USSR) was dissolved. Or does Russia inherit those agreements? It seems like it would amount to a letter of intent, not a contract.

Otherwise it would imply that a promise was made and the immoral/guilty party is the entity that promised not to expand NATO. That is the argument that I constantly here from the pro Russian side and … seeing things from the Russian side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

As far as I can see, a treaty with the USSR won't have much standing, since the entity (the USSR) was dissolved. Or does Russia inherit those agreements?

Yes, it does. The Russian Federation declared itself the successor of the defunct USSR and the United Nations toocognizance:

"The Alma-Ata Protocol also addressed other issues, including UN membership. Notably, Russia was authorized to assume the Soviet Union's UN membership, including its permanent seat on the Security Council. The Soviet Ambassador to the UN delivered a letter signed by Russian President Yeltsin to the UN Secretary-General dated 24 December 1991, informing him that by virtue of the Alma-Ata Protocol, Russia was the successor state to the USSR. After being circulated among the other UN member states, with no objection raised, the statement was [implicitly] accepted [as of] 31 December 1991" (this is from Wiki, Dissolution of the Soviet Union)  

Quote

Otherwise it would imply that a promise was made and the immoral/guilty party is the entity that promised not to expand NATO. That is the argument that I constantly here from the pro Russian side and … seeing things from the Russian side.

To my knowledge and according to my research, no such oral or written promise/agreement was made.

If you need further details and references about this dispute, please let me know.

Meanwhile I will only mention that Gorbachev himself strongly denied that assurances/promises were made to him about non-expansion of NATO:

Quote

M.Gorbatchev: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years [1989-1991/al]. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.

Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. [...] So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object.

The above is from an interview Gorbachev gave in October 2014 to the Moscow publication Rossiyskaya Gazeta and its foreign edition Russia Beyond [the Headlines], RTBH, a publication related to RIA Novosti and Russia Today

In the same interview Gorbachev repeatedly condemns the NATO expansion to the East.

Edited by AlexL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...