Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
NATO does not "take over" anything, they ALLOW membership to those countries that seek it. With agressive neighbors like Russia joining a defensive alliance is a no-braininer.Well Peter the great is one thing but why not look at what caused his thoughts to develop in that way. The Democracy Now interview gives an introduction to some of that and to Putin's original feelings. Beginning point I think that no sooner had Russia and the US agreed that NATO would go no further, than the US was already making its plans to take over the previous Warsaw Pack countries and surround Russia with Nato and arguably with no country stronger than with Ukraine - the country in NATO in everything but name.
Are you Russian? When were you living there? Looks to me that either you were a lot more critical then or there was more criticism in the society which itself is a positive thing,ciHaving being born and living in Russia it's not at all what I've "been conditioned to belive" it's what I've LEARNED about the abject failure that is Russia's corrupt governing
what do you mean by this? Even if this was true that would not mean that what you are saying Re Russia being to blame is true.. You need to look into the situation you are talking about. From what you have said you appear to believe US Good Russia bad. Who is the country who has been fighting war upon war upon war for these past 20 years? The UK can usually be found in the background helping the US trying to get itself the feeling that it is still an imperialist power.and vastly superior governing structure in developed democracies, which of course inludes United States that I now call my home.
America does not reflect any more. I do not know when it last did but it was a long time ago and at that time it was the power of America's people who had no problems in creating uproar when the US was found acting against democracy. Those days are long gone. Ended September 11th 2001America is certainly not perfect and we make mistakes, but our relatively open and low corruption system allows for reflection and correction from the bottom up. It's what I'm proud to be part of.
Lol. I know your thinking. You’re fine with the US invading nations half way around the world, because that’s for American interests. Russia isn’t allowed to have interests.Start a separate thread and I'll tell you all about that. I'm not going to let you derail this one.
Pure dupe!NATO does not "take over" anything, they ALLOW membership to those countries that seek it. With agressive neighbors like Russia joining a defensive alliance is a no-braininer.
NATO has never threatened Russian borders AND NEVER WILL due to nuclear deterence arrangement. It's just an excuse and a bogeyman Putin uses to get his nationalists to support invading other countries.
You can play games with yourself but not with me. A promise is a promise. The US reneged on theirs. A country which is wanting to live on good terms with their neighbours does not do this. I don't think you have given this any study apart from the general media. At the end of WW2 the US had over 50 Independently funded media. This is considered very important for democracies. Now it has 5 .NATO does not "take over" anything, they ALLOW membership to those countries that seek it. With agressive neighbors like Russia joining a defensive alliance is a no-braininer.
NATO has never threatened Russian borders AND NEVER WILL due to nuclear deterence arrangement. It's just an excuse and a bogeyman Putin uses to get his nationalists to support invading other countries.
Exactly. All he knows is Russia bad, just as the establishment has instructed him to think.You can play games with yourself but not with me. A promise is a promise. The US reneged on theirs. A country which is wanting to live on good terms with their neighbours does not do this. I don't think you have given this any study apart from the general media. At the end of WW2 the US had over 50 Independently funded media. This is considered very important for democracies. Now it has 5 .
There is not a single word of truth in your post. Obviously, no promise about NATO not allowing eastern European states to join NATO in the future was made or could have been made and the claim that the US has only five independent news organizations is bizarre.You can play games with yourself but not with me. A promise is a promise. The US reneged on theirs. A country which is wanting to live on good terms with their neighbours does not do this. I don't think you have given this any study apart from the general media. At the end of WW2 the US had over 50 Independently funded media. This is considered very important for democracies. Now it has 5 .
When you yourself choose to write the truth and learn how to speak to people without sounding like a gutter snipe, you may become worth talking to. For other people.There is not a single word of truth in your post. Obviously, no promise about NATO not allowing eastern European states to join NATO in the future was made or could have been made and the claim that the US has only five independent news organizations is bizarre.
The 6 Companies That Own (Almost) All Media [INFOGRAPHIC]
In modern America, it feels like you have an unlimited variety of entertainment and media options right at your fingertips.
Television, film, and video game companies seem to come out of the woodwork in today’s startup-centric economy. Who knows what they’ll do next? But while it may seem like you have limitless options, most of the media you consume is owned by one of six companies.
These six media companies are known as The Big 6.
While independent media outlets still exist (and there are a lot of them), the major outlets are almost all owned by these six conglomerates. To be clear, “media” in this context does not refer just to news outlets — it refers to any medium that controls the distribution of information. So here, “media” includes 24-hour news stations, newspapers, publishing houses, Internet utilities, and even video game developers.
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
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.
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]
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 “Tutzing formula” immediately became the center of a flurry of important diplomatic discussions over the next 10 days in 1990, leading to the crucial February 10, 1990, meeting in Moscow between Kohl and Gorbachev when the West German leader achieved Soviet assent in principle to German unification in NATO, as long as NATO did not expand to the east. The Soviets would need much more time to work with their domestic opinion (and financial aid from the West Germans) before formally signing the deal in September 1990.
.....................
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)
The full National Security Archive report is at << NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive>>
New Documents: US Promised Not to Expand NATO Eastward - MLToday
facebook Twitter Like Gmail 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...mltoday.com
Dupe Alert!There is not a single word of truth in your post. Obviously, no promise about NATO not allowing eastern European states to join NATO in the future was made or could have been made and the claim that the US has only five independent news organizations is bizarre.
I suspect some of these posters are paid by the establishment to push the establishment narrative. Because really, how could they be this uninformed by accident?When you yourself choose to write the truth and learn how to speak to people without sounding like a gutter snipe, you may become worth talking to. For other people.
Independently funded news I said. I did what you could have done a search. Lets get started. Here they are talking about 6 Companies owning the press
Forbes manages to find 15 Billionaires who run your media
These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies
It should not surprise most people to understand that these people all have similar interests and what we are finding now in the US is that those whose politics do not fit with theirs will either find themselves sacked for not saying the right thing or banned from social media sites like twitter and you tube. I was reading about some of the stuff going on in the UK today and thinking My God it is just like we were always told communist countries were like.
What I read before is that after WW2 indeed it was probably in the 70's the US media was owned by 50 people (or companies) they are now owned by 5. I may find that another time but this is sufficient for now.
With respect to Nato, I am surprised that you seem to be the only person who is unaware of this.
Are you Russian? When were you living there? Looks to me that either you were a lot more critical then or there was more criticism in the society which itself is a positive thing,
what do you mean by this? Even if this was true that would not mean that what you are saying Re Russia being to blame is true.. You need to look into the situation you are talking about. From what you have said you appear to believe US Good Russia bad. Who is the country who has been fighting war upon war upon war for these past 20 years? The UK can usually be found in the background helping the US trying to get itself the feeling that it is still an imperialist power.
American does not reflect any more. I do not know when it last did but it was a long time ago and at that time it was the power of America's people who had no problems in creating uproar when the US was found acting against democracy. Those days are long gone. Ended September 11th 2001
You can play games with yourself but not with me. A promise is a promise. The US reneged on theirs. A country which is wanting to live on good terms with their neighbours does not do this. I don't think you have given this any study apart from the general media. At the end of WW2 the US had over 50 Independently funded media. This is considered very important for democracies. Now it has 5 .
Your absurd question is Something no one ever said. Must you always resort to strawman arguments? It is so immature and transparent.It's not a matter of bad people vs good people. People are people.
It's a matter of societal and governing structure that the people live and participate in. There are bad systems of governing (like Russia's) and there much better systems like those found in developed Democracies.
US leader made an informal promise...therefore Russia invading Ukraine and annexing their land is justified?
What nonsense.
You continue to post lies and then pretend to be offended when you are caught.When you yourself choose to write the truth and learn how to speak to people without sounding like a gutter snipe, you may become worth talking to. For other people.
Independently funded news I said. I did what you could have done a search. Lets get started. Here they are talking about 6 Companies owning the press
Forbes manages to find 15 Billionaires who run your media
These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies
It should not surprise most people to understand that these people all have similar interests and what we are finding now in the US is that those whose politics do not fit with theirs will either find themselves sacked for not saying the right thing or banned from social media sites like twitter and you tube. I was reading about some of the stuff going on in the UK today and thinking My God it is just like we were always told communist countries were like.
What I read before is that after WW2 indeed it was probably in the 70's the US media was owned by 50 people (or companies) they are now owned by 5. I may find that another time but this is sufficient for now.
With respect to Nato, I am surprised that you seem to be the only person who is unaware of this.
www.brookings.edu
You don't quite understand what you read, your source doesn't say that they own ALL American media. It just lists 15 billionares who own some major media.Forbes manages to find 15 Billionaires who run your media
These 15 Billionaires Own America's News Media Companies
projects.iq.harvard.edu
www.politico.eu
www.cnn.com
www.cnn.com
www.politico.eu
That's a load of crock.America does not reflect any more. I do not know when it last did but it was a long time ago and at that time it was the power of America's people who had no problems in creating uproar when the US was found acting against democracy. Those days are long gone. Ended September 11th 2001
This from a member of Reagan’s cabinet has more validity. I suspect you're posting establishment propaganda.You continue to post lies and then pretend to be offended when you are caught.
We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. 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.”
Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says "No" | Brookings
Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it well known his antipathy towards NATO, claiming the Alliance took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. Steven Pifer argues that no such promises were...
Were you not so dull witted and bigoted it would have been obvious to you that no pledge not to allow eastern European countries to join NATO would have been possible since no US president has that power and NATO's founding charter would not have allowed it. We all know Putin is a liar, and you, too, c are clearly a shameless liar.
This from a member of Reagan’s cabinet has more validity. I suspect you're posting establishment propaganda.
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/T5CSQI7DPJP4BHAQMCOWIGDBFA.jpg)
www.reuters.com
I hear you, but you've already told us you have nothing but shit for brains, so there's no need to repeat yourself.This from a member of Reagan’s cabinet has more validity. I suspect you're posting establishment propaganda.
After Reagan’s second term ended, I had less connection with his successor, his former vice president, George H. W. Bush, but I know for an absolute fact that Secretary of State James Baker gave assurances to Gorbachev that if Gorbachev permitted the unification of Germany, NATO would not move one inch to the East. There is no doubt about this, despite the denials by American neoconservatives and Clinton regime officials.
Mikhail Gorbachev R.I.P. - LewRockwell
[/QUOTE]It's not a matter of bad people vs good people. People are people.
It's a matter of societal and governing structure that the people live and participate in.
The difference between the two is becoming less and less. We fought for our Democracies - although many people will tell you the US is not and never has been a democracy. Do you understand what Democracies are? They are a lot more than a vote every 3 or 4 years.There are bad systems of governing (like Russia's) and there much better systems like those found in developed Democracies.
US leader made an informal promise..
The “Tutzing formula” immediately became the center of a flurry of important diplomatic discussions over the next 10 days in 1990, leading to the crucial February 10, 1990, meeting in Moscow between Kohl and Gorbachev when the West German leader achieved Soviet assent in principle to German unification in NATO, as long as NATO did not expand to the east. The Soviets would need much more time to work with their domestic opinion (and financial aid from the West Germans) before formally signing the deal in September 1990.
.....................
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)
The full National Security Archive report is at << NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard | National Security Archive>>
Your reasoning yes.What nonsense.
That's a load of cro
www.newsweek.com
inequality.org
Not completely true. Julian Assange for starters. However Putin's bumping off of those who would challenge him has absolutely nothing to do with the US promising that a United Germany under Nato would be the end of NATO moving Eastward. Rather if anything it is a response to that in that it led to a situation where Russia was sufficiently concerned about its security that the hoped for Democracy took a secondary position.Unlike in Russia our leaders and journalists don't get murdered and jailed for opposing policies or parties.
Something which people have the ability to argue in whatever direction they want. The right of journalism has become obsolete with the intent to keep Julian Assange in jail for the rest of his life for reporting US war crimes.Our rights are Constitutionally protected.
Not good enough. All the Gerrymandering and removal of votes that is going on makes you already not an honest democracy never mind your governments whether it is Democratic or Republican not serving you but the hand that feeds them.Our elections are relatively open
Highly competitive? Who are you trying to fool? You have two parties both of whom have to serve the hand that feeds them if they want to get into and stay in office.and highly competetive (a sign of vertical responsibility from the people, to the leadership),
our Courts and Congress are mostly independent from Executive (horizontal responsibility among the branches of government).
That is very far from the truth but you seem to be totally uneducated on it.Our constitutional democracy is very much alive and well thus far.
