"Der Spiegel: NATO deceived Russia" Topic

NATO deceived Russia about expansion and a British document proves it, top German weekly discovers

A newly discovered document from March 1991 shows US, UK, French, and German officials discussing a pledge made to Moscow that NATO would not expand to Poland and beyond. Its publication by the German magazine Der Spiegel on Friday comes as expansion of the US-led bloc has led to a military standoff in Eastern Europe.

link

link

First, you link to RT, and known Russian propaganda site. It's a worthless link.

Second, the Der Spiegal article that your conclusion is nowhere near as clear as you state, or that RT says. Here's a link to the actual article:

link

Third, the copy of the document you have in your text is not in the Der Spiegel article. Maybe it's elsewhere, but I'd like to see the source. And it's no surprise that the RT article has the purported document. The Der Spiegel link you provided doesn't have a copy of that document either: maybe you can show us the actual Der Spiegel link to the document.

As the article states, there never was an agreement, just an "understanding" which can easily lead to misunderstandings. And this "understanding" involved conversations and multiple OPINIONS from a variety of western diplomats from multiple nations, and NOT from NATO. Also, as the article states, Yeltsin gave his approval for NATO expansion in 1997, although he felt he was forced to do it.

Read the actual article in the link I provided.

All what comes out now to justify muscovites aggression are false flags.
We may take it as given.

Here is the source of the image I posted.

link

I cited the RT article because reading information on the Spiegel website requires a paid subscription, which I am not interested in. And I did not find another source of information in English (although I did not really look for it). Do you have any specific objections to the information posted there?
Why did you post an article about Russian dissatisfaction with the violation of the obligations assumed by the West, I do not understand. All of this mattered before the advent of the new document. Now there is direct evidence of such a deal.

I seem to recall a defense treaty between a number of powers when Ukraine agreed to give up their nuclear weapons.

Clearly, the Russians "deceived" Ukraine on that "deal" too.

link

The Budapest Memorandum:

"On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The four parties signed the memorandum, containing a preamble and six paragraphs. The memorandum reads as follows:[10]

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

Confirm the following:

1. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.

2. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

3. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.

4. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm their commitment to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine, as a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used.

5. The Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America reaffirm, in the case of Ukraine, their commitment not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, except in the case of an attack on themselves, their territories or dependent territories, their armed forces, or their allies, by such a State in association or alliance with a nuclear-weapon State.

6. Ukraine, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will consult in the event a situation arises that raises a question concerning these commitments.

— Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine's Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons[10]".

Excellent memorandum. It is a pity that even Ukraine did not ratify it.

By the way, do you think that Fat Kim from North Korea is still right?

There are outlets where this kind of Russian propaganda is taken without question. I glad this is not one of them.

It is very convenient to declare any facts that do not suit you as propaganda. But can you refute these facts? Or is it already a religious issue (a matter of faith) for you? :)

Cuprum, you have not presented any facts, and you have not provided any direct evidence; only a link to a propaganda site (RT), and a twitter feed that does NOT source the document. Therefore, no facts to refute.

Actually, this is a link to a tweet from the same professor at Boston University in the USA, who discovered this document in the National Archives of Great Britain)))
The fact that these documents were discovered was confirmed by Spiegel …
What more proof do you need?

If you don't want to believe, don't believe. I personally don't care :)

Cuprum it won't matter Russia will be seen as the aggressor in this conflict. I would expect more applicants for NATO membership not less after Putin's stunt. We should give Ukraine their nukes back since we are clearly not going to go to war with Russia to honor our promise to Ukraine if they gave them up. The end result will be a resurrection of Mordor and Putin gets to be Sauron. The Russian people have to decide if they are willing to be Orcs…

Whatever you believe Cuprum, it still gives you no right to invade another sovereign country. This only shows what a bunch of barbarians the Russians really are; nobody trusts you and with very good reason. The best thing that could happen for all concerned is for that little Hitler, Putin, to be removed, preferably permanently.

When the balloon goes up, I'm still waiting for Comrade Cuprum to explain why it's NOT happening.

Until recently, he argued vehemently that nothing was going to happen at all, and that his poor, innocent, naive, peace loving Russians were justified to think the world is out to get them.

Mind, I STILL don't want the balloon to go up, but I've been seeing this coming for months. It's not soothsaying--it's history.

TVAG

Cuprum just lies like Putin. :-)

Gorbachev says – there were no such promises.
youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=3ZES9PVKcks

There were only 3 point agreement:

1. Until Soviet forces had completed their withdrawal from the former GDR, only German territorial defense units not integrated into NATO would be deployed in that territory.

2. There would be no increase in the numbers of troops or equipment of U.S., British and French forces stationed in Berlin.

3. Once Soviet forces had withdrawn, German forces assigned to NATO could be deployed in the former GDR, but foreign forces and nuclear weapons systems would not be deployed there.

brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no

The fact that these documents were discovered was confirmed by Spiegel …
What more proof do you need?

Actually, YOU still have NOT provided any proof of your claims, and the Der Spiegel article does not confirm the documents. Read the article.

Regardless, considering the extent of Soviet/ Russian deception over the decades, is this really of great consequence in any case?

Which country was attacked by Russia? All we have heard for the last few months is "invasion is imminent" and "they will attack any day" and "February 16th"…

The Olympics end today. We will see what happens. Will Xi release his leash from Putin's collar and let him serve as a distraction?

Russia is not the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was an ideological state committed to the Marxist-Leninist notion of world revolution. Russia is a nation-state with a rich cultural heritage that has enough problems holding itself together. The population of the Soviet Union was almost 300 million. The population of Russia is smaller than Bangladesh or Nigeria and is getting smaller all the time. Whether we admit it or not, there are natural spheres of influence. For many centuries one could argue that even Poland, Hungary the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Croatia and the the Baltic States of Latvia, and Lithuania had historic ties to the West (Latvia being predominantly Lutheran, and Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, Slovenia, and Croatia being predominately Catholic). Thus, one could make an argument that the West has cultural ties to these nations and Western nations might have reasons to extend their defensive alliances into these nations. Ukraine, on the other hand, has never been in the Western orbit. Thus, even a jingoist like me realizes that at a certain point the Western Sphere of influence must have its limits.

If we were still facing the threat of a Soviet Union with ambitions for world domination, then I would even find reasons for justifying NATO involvement in an independent Ukraine. But as I said before, Russia is not the Soviet Union. And even if the Russians invaded Ukraine, do you really believe (given their weakened state) that they could hold on to it indefinitely? Such an invasion, even if initially successful, may in the long run weaken Russia even more. It is the nature of empires to overextend themselves. The question now is whether it will be the empire of NATO or the Russians that overextends itself first. Whatever the case, the only true winner in this possible conflict is China -- which should be a concern to both Americans and Russians.

It's nice to see that there are still sane people in the West)))

I didn't say a word about Ukraine. But now I'll tell you some of my thoughts…
You are all military gamers. Many of you are active or retired military. Look at the map of the location of Ukrainian troops. Do you see a defensive grouping in all possible directions of the impending Russian invasion? I do not see. I see a concentration of Ukrainian troops near the borders of the unrecognized republics. And I can only assume one thing – this is the impending OFFENSIVE operation of the Ukrainian troops. In addition, it is obvious that the Ukrainian army will be doomed to a quick encirclement and defeat during a Russian offensive in this position of troops. It will be enough to destroy or capture the bridges on the Dnieper and the Ukrainian army is doomed.
What for?

The best thing that could happen for all concerned is for that little Hitler, Putin, to be removed, preferably permanently.

Putin is not a "little Hitler". He's a bargain basement Stalin.

Just like those Poles who attacked Germany and started WWII?

"Russia is not the Soviet Union."

However, it is run by an ex-KGB officer that thinks the dissolution of the USSR was a catastrophe and appears ready to reconstitute the empire, ideology is an afterthought.

"Ukraine, on the other hand, has never been in the Western orbit. Thus, even a jingoist like me realizes that at a certain point the Western Sphere of influence must have its limits."

So, Ukraine should not be able to decide for themselves because they have the misfortune of being a neighbor to Russia? So many neighboring countries detest Russia and with good cause…

On a personal note, I admire Putin's intestinal fortitude to engage in this Game of Thrones crap. Grab any unaligned country on your border now before empire building is impossible. Any non-NATO country that shares a border or is close to Russia should be worried if they don't have a military worth a damn… (Sweden and Finland I hope you are taking notes…)

If I was Biden, I would secretly transport Ukraine nukes since we are not going to honor our promise to the Ukrainian people. Russia would stand down if faced with the possibility of nuclear war.

@Cuprum

No one and I mean no one is going to believe for a second that Ukraine started this!

So what is a problem when Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and many other states want to be outside of US sphere of influence? Is it ok that Cuba is under +60 years of blockade?

We have no blockade of Cuba since the Cuban missile crisis, but Cuba regurgitates that myth and blames the USA for its own economic failures. In fact, we get blamed for Venezuela's failed policies and incompetence quite often. The point is we do not have armies poised to absorb them into the USA against their will.

@Perun

Don't confuse the word embargo with the word blockade. Cuba nationalized USA business holdings and refused to compensate the USA so we refuse to do business with them until they compensate us for what they stole, that is an embargo.

I stand correcte, it is embargo. But whay Guantanamo base is stil under US administration?
CIA has long history of operations and I dont belive that they stoped now.

Dragon Gunner: "No one and I mean no one is going to believe for a second that Ukraine started this!"

Yes, sure. All this was already in Georgia, during the Olympic War on 08.08.08. This is the usual behavior of the hypocritical West – no matter what the US puppets do, Russia will be blamed;)
What difference does it make? It doesn't matter anymore. Russia will not allow the self-proclaimed republics to be eliminated by military means. Regardless of any threats.

@Perun

I believe both the USA and Russia are empires with sordid histories bathed in blood and dirty deeds. These are the issues I see today…

1.Europe wants Russia as a peaceful neighbor to coexist with and conduct trade.

2. Russia has a leader that is caught up in the Great Game and wants to engage in empire building. Putin's KGB roots will never go away he is mired in the Cold War. I believe Russia would be better served by a civilian president with a different background.

3. Russia has to decide if they want to be the violent, dangerous and shunned neighbor of the European community or if they want to move past that old model into a different future.

"Russia will not allow the self-proclaimed republics to be eliminated by military means."

So by invading and conquering them you believe you are saving them? I don't understand the statement could you elaborate?

"1.Europe wants Russia as a peaceful neighbor to coexist with and conduct trade."

This would be great except no one asks EU what they want, US is behind the wheel

I guess that depends on what Xi wants. Those strings pass all the way to Moscow. Will Putinocchio cut his strings.

Dragon Gunner, I did not understand you.
After the armed coup in Ukraine in 2014, which took place with the open support of the West, some Russian-speaking Ukrainians refused to submit to the rebels who came to power. These people with weapons in their hands resisted the rebels who illegally seized power in the country. And yes – this resistance took place with the support of Russia (I don't see anything shameful in this after the rebellion in Ukraine was openly supported by the West). On territories free from the power of the rebels, two dwarf republics were formed. The rebel government that is now in power in Ukraine refuses to engage in any negotiations with Ukrainian citizens who have refused to recognize the coup. This government wishes to destroy the newly formed republics by military force. Russia is ready to provide any support to the unrecognized republics, up to declaring war on Ukraine in the event of a military attack on these unrecognized republics.
This is how I see the situation.

@Cuprum

You said, " All this was already in Georgia, during the Olympic War on 08.08.08" I thought you had changed the subject to Georgia as an example so I responded to that. Then you suddenly jump to Ukraine in 2014.

I will respond to Ukraine in 2014.The narrative plays differently in the West; it sounds like a Pro Russian leader went against the will of the majority his people wanting closer ties to Europe and was removed from power. A minority of pro-Russian speaking people had a tantrum and launched an insurrection with covert Russian military assistance. In the process they took some territory where they were concentrated with them. Ukraine does not recognize these breakaway republics as legitimate and would like to retain control of its sovereign territory.

I really appreciate our Russian member contributions to this discussion because honestly, I don't trust Western media…

This thread has become a victim of Russian propaganda. Reality and facts no longer exist for the Russian apologists.

Dragon Gunner, ok, this view has the right to exist.
But look at it from a different angle. What is democracy? People elect their government in open and fair elections. There is a legitimately elected president and parliament, and they make government decisions based on democratic procedures. Is everything right?
Then there are citizens who are dissatisfied with the decisions made, and they begin a violent confrontation with the legally elected authorities. They do not initiate re-elections of the president (there was, if I remember correctly, one year before the new elections in Ukraine). Even if there are more of these citizens (on a specific territory – in the capital of the country). And they are actively and openly supported by official foreign representatives (politicians and ambassadors from Western countries). Western countries threaten the legitimate government with sanctions in the event of violent suppression of riots (by the way, in Canada recently no one was embarrassed to disperse protesting citizens, and in France the strongest confrontation between citizens and the authorities lasted more than a year).
This confrontation in Ukraine is complicated by national enmity that has been smoldering since the Middle Ages (the eastern part of Ukraine with the Russian-speaking population gravitates towards Russia, the western part towards Europe). President Yanukovych is a representative of the Russian-speaking population.
He is overthrown by force. Parliament makes decisions under pressure from armed insurgents.
The Russian-speaking population is naturally trying to resist the rebels. The rebels refuse to negotiate with those who do not recognize their authority and an armed confrontation begins.
Russia has its own interest – the rebels who seized power in Ukraine will definitely strive to join NATO, which is unacceptable for Russia for many reasons. And if before the seizure of power in Ukraine, Russia played by the rules, waging the usual diplomatic struggle, then after that it provides all possible assistance to the Russian-speaking resistance. And Crimea, where the vast majority of Russian-speaking people (Crimea belonged to Russia for 300 years) was, if you like, annexed, with the almost complete support of the local population (Crimea was part of Ukraine on the rights of autonomy, but was later deprived of such a status, to which the Crimeans were very offended).
Yesterday, Russia officially recognized the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic, and offered them any military assistance in repelling Ukrainian aggression. Ukraine had plenty of time to negotiate with the self-proclaimed republics to reunify the country, taking into account the interests of its Russian-speaking population, but it preferred the military scenario.

Putting the differing points of view on just who are and are not the rebels in this case, how about this? Russia keeps those territories and gets out of Kaliningrad and Moldova. Russia has no right to either of those territories by any stretch. Romania and Ukraine can divide Moldova and Kaliningrad can become a new Baltic state (and the people forcibly expelled from there in a gross ethnic cleansing after wwii can return)?

Well it is not that simple.
– are you going to ask Poles to give Western part of their country to Germans
-are you going to ask Lithuania to give their capital city to Poles
- are you going to ask Ukraine to give their Western territories to Poles
- are you going to ask Byelorussia to give their Western territories to Poles
- are you going to ask Romania to give part of its territory to Hungary
I think that's not all, but it gives some ideas.

All this will be the return to 1939 borders… Kaliningrad is only a part of this map.
And as for Transnistria, it was in Romania for ca. 20 years between WWI and WWII, being a part of Russian Empire for more than a hundred years.

"the western part towards Europe" the term Europe is geographical and includes Russia also. The political term Europe is a new one and it is stretched thin. I doubt that can survive any serious crisis.

I think that those who remained loyal to democracy are legitimate, and not those who seized power in the country by force… Do you have a different opinion? Well, that's your right. But the one who was expelled by the rebels was elected by the whole country, including future rebels. And the president, who is now sitting in Kiev, was not elected by the inhabitants of the unrecognized republics and this not obliged to obey him. Is not it?
Russia received Kaliningrad as a result of the Second World War. Do you want to cancel the results of this war? You, apparently, have no idea what kind of "Pandora's box" you open with such actions …
Do you know how the Germans were expelled from Czechoslovakia and Poland? How did Poland and Ukraine exchange territories and population? That Hungary still claims the territories that were ceded to Ukraine? And many, many more different mutual claims… Let's arrange a new big redistribution in Europe?

Nope, just offering an exchange straight up. I'm talking real politic, not proposing a full resettling of borders. If you want to reclaim all Russian territory, it's going to get interesting. Poland was Russian for awhile. Of course, how far back do you want to go? Russia was a Mongol territory for a long time. Should we go back that far? Or farther, when Kiev was the center of the Rus? If we go by that logic, Kiev should rule Moscow, not the other way around.

Of course that is silly, as was my proposal. But no less silly than reneging on the arrangements agreed to at the end of the Cold War. NATO should not have encroached on Russia to the extent it did, but Putin's current actions a going to encourage a backlash you might not like. Finland might join NATO now, as might Sweden. Poland will continue to militarize.

By your own logic, what right do ethic Ukrainians have in Crimea or the Eastern Territories have under Russian rule? Crimea was 40% ethnic Ukrainians and it pretty clear how little mattered after the Russian invasion.

By your logic, China has a pretty good claim on the Eastern Siberian territories as there are way more Chinese living there than Russians (by treaty since Russia invited China to send workers to exploit natural resources). Careful that the excuses you use for belligerence don't come back to haunt you.

Not taking a side here. Cannot vouch for the facts in this, but know at least some is true. Enjoy.

Subject: Some Fun Facts Re Russia and the Ukraine


link

It is always good practice to hide lies below a little truth.
And the only truth I found there, was "In the Deep State narrative Russia is Evil and Ukraine is Good."
And then mass of lies follow.. started with "Ukraine was part of Russia for more than 300 years".

A large part was grabbed by Czarist Russia in 1667. I believe the other part was grabbed in 1793. So give or take, quite a while. I believe Catherine did the 1793 "acquisition". She probably called it a police action too. 😂

No, there were no Czarist Russia but Czardom of Muscowy.
After Peter I grabbed slavic territories (Ukraina and Belarus), he renamed the Czardom of Muscovy to Vserossian Empire and muscovites to velikorosses in 1721.

Ukraina and other territories, including Rossia himself, were personal property of Czar-Emperor and not part of Rossian territory. After the Empire falls, most on foreign lands, without their lord now, fought for independence, Ukraina among the others. Unfortunately Red Army conquered Ukraina again and prepared to invade to Italy, but Poland (another former personal property of Czar-Emperor) stops them.

Why return Russian territories? As they say in Russia: "It is impossible to turn minced meat into a piece of meat again." Before the rebellions aimed at suppressing people of Russian nationality in the states adjacent to Russia, no one claimed any territories. What claims can you present to Russia before the uprising in Ukraine?
What territories does Russia claim anywhere else?
Russia is interested in the absence of NATO at its borders. What would the Americans say about the military alliance between Mexico and, for example, China? How would you like the appearance of Chinese tanks and missiles at your borders? Of course, China would promise that this is not directed against the United States, but Mexico simply remembers how Texas was taken away from it and is afraid of new aggression)))

Few in Russia doubt that Finland and Sweden will join NATO. NATO's "quiet" offensive towards the Russian borders will continue at the earliest opportunity, and any Russian protests on this issue have always been dismissed.

There are a huge number of ethnic Ukrainians in Russia itself (as well as Poles, Germans and people of other European nationalities). Have you heard of their oppression?

Ukrainians in Crimea have never been more than 25% of the population. At the same time, keep in mind that a significant part of them are Russian-speaking, i.e. focused on Russia, not Europe.

link

The Chinese living in the Russian Far East are foreign citizens. Russian and Russian-speaking Ukrainians living in the Crimea and in the east of Ukraine are full citizens of Ukraine. Do you really not understand the difference? They have all the same rights as the rest of the citizens of Ukraine – but they were deprived of these rights by force.

So Cuprum2 , I suppose this gives the Russians the right to invade and annex parts of sovereign countries that they choose ?

As Tgerritsen said:

NATO should not have encroached on Russia to the extent it did, but Putin's current actions a going to encourage a backlash you might not like.

I also thought NATO, led by the US, was pushing too hard against the Russian borders. However that doesn't excuse what has happened over the last couple of days.

If Sweden and Finland join NATO then it's because they feel threatened by Russia under Putin's leadership, with Ukraine an example of what may happen next. I'm sure the Finns remember 1939-1940. (Ironically it means Russian aggression will have put two more NATO countries on Russia's border).

Putin is also putting a lot of faith in Xi's word. The current concentration against Ukraine may provide the PRC with an opportunity to "recover" the "lost provinces" we now call Siberia.

Ironically Putin himself wanted to join to NATO. Probably in the year 2004?

"There are a huge number of ethnic Ukrainians in Russia itself. Have you heard of their oppression?"

Yes. How many Ukrainian schools are in Rossian Federation?
The answer is – zero.

"NATO's "quiet" offensive towards the Russian borders will continue at the earliest opportunity, and any Russian protests on this issue have always been dismissed."

Of course, all Rossias neighbours want to join with NATO to avoid annexations by Rossia. And all Rossian protest on this issue are caused by possibility to not have enough weak neighbours to invade with "small victorious wars", so needed for Putins fascist dictatorship.

"They have all the same rights as the rest of the citizens of Ukraine – but they were deprived of these rights by force."

Yes, by force, by Russian intervention, occupation and annexation.
Now they have the same rights as the rest of the citizens of Rossian Federation – none.