Priceless observation, starguy! LOL

Hmm, I don't recall them traveling to 1984 mah dude. >.<

Uhhh thats Ted Theodore Logan, Esq dude!

It wasn't a written treaty, but was a key part of the discussion as de-classified documents have shown around the re-unification of Germany. Per the documents we "intentionally misled" the Soviets into thinking that NATO would be subsumed entirely into a broader "new European security structure" that would include Russia. The agreement was that NATO would not expand and would become instead part of a new political-focused entity that covered all of Europe and included Russia, being no longer aimed at Russia as a military opposing force.

We broke all of those. Now, that is arguable only in the sense that we made those promises and didn't act on them, but that is also part of the problem - we had no intention to do so.

The underlying issue for Russia was that NATO was designed to isolate them - a policy we called "containment." This is why they wanted what they did - no expansion and for NATO to no longer be an anti-Russian military force. It was also important, as noted by then-President of Czechosolovakia Vaclav Havel wrote to Bush:

"It is a question of prestige. This is the reason why I talked about the new European security system without mentioning NATO. Because, if it grew out of NATO, it would have to be named something else, if only because of the element of prestige. If NATO takes over Germany, it will look like defeat, one superpower conquering another. But if NATO can transform itself – perhaps in conjunction with the Helsinki process – it would look like a peaceful process of change, not defeat."

There was a ton of back and forth about how rapidly withdrawal of troops would happen that I wish was talked about more in history classes and in discussion about that era as they are important to understanding. For example most Americans don't know that Gorbachev was against rapid removal of U.S. forces in Europe.

We also know much of the veiled animosity and duplicitousness in these conversations and agreements came from Bush himself as he refused to treat the Russians as anything less than a defeated enemy - arguably something we are paying for to this very day.

Honestly anyone interested in how such a major event as the fall of an nuclear superpower was managed really should look into the declassified documents as they are amazing. The discussions around Germany's involvement in NATO specifically as a means to make it want to give up its NBC capabilities and much o fits military is eye-opening at the very least, especially when combined with the claim by the US that NATO would cease being a military-political organization and be replaced by a "whole of Europe" political one.

In many ways the re-unification of Germany was a continuation of the Allied powers' conquest of Germany at the end of WWII, even Gorbachev himself referred to the powers in the negotiations as the "four victorious powers" and four side even brought up the Potsdam agreement.

The inclusion of Germany in NATO, the Warsaw Pact, or neither was a major sticking point for everyone involved, and this is sorely unknown. It was more important for the Russians than the other parties, and in the end they feel (rightly based on the docs) that they were screwed over on it. It is unrealistic to think that this didn't affect their internal politics heavily and still carries influence today.

The promise to subsume NATO and make it non-military and non-existent as a military entity began under Regan, but Bush seemed quite opposed to it (not a surprise, really). Baker repeatedly assured Gorbachev that they were still committed to it as part of the German reunification. For Russia it was both about internal politics as well as their sense of security, something even Thatcher publicly acknowledged.

For decades since there has been this back and forth about Eastern European nations joining NATO - going against virtually all of the agreements made with Russia in the early 90s not just in spirit but in letter. It carried across administrations from both parties. At every turn the Russians were concerned about being more and more isolated from Europe. At every turn we continued to isolate them - from Bush through Clinton. By the end of Clinton's administration it was clear to the Russians that the West had no intention of honoring its agreement to get rid of NATO and build a full-European institution that was political rather than military and included Russia, and they were right.

Most, if not all, commentators on Ukraine and NATO are ignorant of these things, and for this reason they are wrong about Putin's response to the idea of Ukraine in NATO. We've had three decades to get rid of NATO and make a full, non-military European security organization that included Russia and have not only not done it we've added to NATO and insisted on it being a "peacekeeping force", and excluded Russia. The Bush and Clinton administrations made the messy bed we see today.

In the Clinton era it was referred to as "neo-isolationism." Yeltsin had, even publicly, noted that America was rapidly expanding NATO and refusing to build the new European security structure it had promised would replace NATO, and again their emphasis was on not "re-dividing Europe" - which is exactly what NATO was doing. Internal documents release have shown that the Clinton administration had decided to oppose Russian inclusion due to it not having "a western culture." Indeed Kornblum and Hearst wrote a memo dismissing as specious Russian talk about the agreements our own documents show we made repeatedly.


Note that I am not commenting on the merits of what went down either way. Merely on the fact that we made promises over and over, and broke every single one - even going to the extent of claiming we never even suggested such things. These were clearly and unmistakably serious concerns and issues for the Russians, as we openly acknowledged. Yet we tossed them aside like Bush tossing broccoli.

Just because our current administration is ignorant or in denial about these events, that does't mean the clearly slighted party is. Indeed they've made clear publicly that they remember and are still pissed about it. And, frankly, on that specific aspect I will say they have every right and reason to be. Especially given that our own declassified documents confirm we never intended to follow through.

In a recent interview. I forget the chap's name. This is why I qualify that statement.

Do they do transcripts of the videos? I could read and analyze 20 transcripts in the time it takes to watch one (poorly produced) video.
It's a different type of fog. LOL

You might be interested in this my friend.
https://patelpatriot.substack.com/p/d...
That is the first in an ongoing series. It is purely fact based as you will see. Have a Qreat day.

Is anyone else surprised that Russian trolls have decided to infiltrate a site devoted to Ayn Rand, surely this is the least likely spot on the internet to fall for Putin's line/lying?

"The entire World"??? No, this site refutes that.

I have to +1 👍🏻

Don't encourage the trolls! They do not "bring information to the table".

Telling it like it is , once again.👍🏻