I was watching a documentary about George Bush on PBS last night and Dick Cheney said that when Gorbachev singed a document on German reunification that he agreed to NATO expansion. This was in response to Putin complaining about NATO expanding to Russia's border. Is that true?
Gorbachev has said in interviews that it was his expectation that when Soviet forces were withdrawn from eastern europe that US and UK and French forces in Germany would be withdrawn and essentially europe would be demilitarised of foreign forces in countries... so each country would only have its own forces based there.
He wouldn't think that if he had signed such a document now would he?
At the end of the cold war the Bush administration was all about... Russia hasn't lost the cold war.... by getting rid of communism they actually won and it should not be about winners and losers... we just need to look at how we are all going to move forward.... and BTW HATO will not expand.
I get the impression he was just a gullible fool who was taken for a complete ride.
He believed the US government and what the officials of the time were saying... but of course the next election time comes and there is no way the Bush administraiton is not going to use the fact that America single handedly won the cold war and Russia lost to try to win another term in office.... politicians would never do that... NOT.
Gorby was naive... but the western politicians were lying scumbags too.
Not to get a proper treaty preventing NATO expansion was inexcusable. It could have gone a long way to preventing the situation we face today. Georgia and the Ukraine would probably never have happened. Everything he touched went to rat s**t. All you can say in his favour is that the shambling drunk of a western puppet who succeeded him, Yeltsin, was even worse.
Gorby was always more popular overseas than at home... Yeltsen ended up the same... and for the same reasons... western propaganda is powerful.
The universal US-UK-NATO attitude is that the word of Westerners is NOT their bond and the sole aim of diplomacy is to screw the Russians.
Deny deny deny... I did not have sexual relations with that woman... even though he did.
But there were no consequences... that is democracy for you.
We see 30 years on that US bases sit everywhere in old Soviet Socialist Republics surrounding Russia. No American cares that their word is worth nothing, will not be seen as worth anything in the 21st century either.
Well another way of looking at it was that Eastern Europe was a buffer zone for Russia so any future major war would not be fought out on her soil, but realistically a nuclear war is not going to involve enemy armour... the US could put its entire army in Poland reading to roll in to Russia... the solution for Russia is not to put every tank they have on their borders ready to meet them... it is to launch tactical nuclear weapons and vapourise them while they are in Poland.
Russia doesn't need buffer states any more... they are too high maintenance these days anyway... Russian subsidies to Ukraine and Belarus are enormous.... it would make more sense to use Russian ports and trade with countries further away that want to work in a more balanced and honest way...
The ICC is worth nothing because Americans are extra-judicial nowadays. So are Israelis. Russia should use that as leverage…
Russia cannot expect fair rulings from european or international organisations.
They should start by stopping funding such organisations, and seek to make alternatives to existing broken institutions...
USAID is a classic NGO front to implement US meddling and mischief. Russia should spy on it unceasingly, exposing the dark underbelly of activities carried out under its cover.
Russia doesn't need to fight the US, just remove its potential to do harm to Russia... so banning USAID and other corrupt politicised NGOs from Russia is already being done. Just a quick check of where an org gets its funding should be sufficient to decide on its own.
Nordstream II is a classic ‘Trade is only allowed according to US rules’ gambit. All US oil and gas interests should be vigorously opposed even when win-win deals can be struck. Israel should be required to back Nordstream II or face diplomatic sanctions….or worse.
US opposition to NSII is just further evidence if any was needed to show that the US does not like fair competition, and prefers to stack the deck in its own favour... they can't compete fairly with piped gas... too cheap and always available.
Ironically I don't think Russia should be supplying Germany and the EU with cheap energy... well via south stream to allies like Serbia and not so hostile countries like Greece and Italy is good... but most of the rest can pay five times more for freedom gas...
Personally I think they should complete North Stream II by making it go to Kaliningrad where it can be used as cheap energy for the locals, and processed into LNG there as well and then shipped to Germany and they can pay the higher price LNG costs for processing and shipping... if they want cheap gas build a factory in Kaliningrad or Russia and use piped gas.
Why on earth should Russia trust anything the West says or does when history proves only that the West will neither conclude nor uphold treaties with integrity where geopolitical relations with Russia are concerned?
Just as importantly anything they do sign they can do what they have been doing... claim Russia is breaking the deal with no proof or evidence and then withdrawing from the deals and then revealing their own systems that broke the deal they were working on but clearly wanted out of the deal so they could openly test... but everyone says it was Russia that was breaking the deal.
The INF treaty is case in point.... AEGIS Ashore is a land based MK-41 vertical missile launch system designed to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles... which directly violates the INF treaty.... whether they load it with missiles or not.
As an example with Flaming Python - Russians hearts are in the right place, but their brains are not.
The thing is that there are just as many in the west who are the same... they believe that the west is not perfect but it is basically a force for good so even when they screw up and lots of people die that things are now better than they were... it is like... all the reasons to invade Iraq were wrong and made up and it was all about control of their oil production... but killing Saddam made it all worth it right?
It seems they are told that Saddam and Gaddafi and Assad is like living in Guantanimo Bay and getting rid of them is better for the people... when the people who replace them are normally hand picked by the west and almost always much much worse... but because the western media does not give a shit... they cheer lead to start wars.... they don't care about the mess that is created by them.
Ask any person from the west if their politicians lie if their media lie and many will say they do, but when their media and politicians claim Putin is to blame then they believe it without any evidence... because no one is giving them an alternative view.