Russian Have Started Retreating

[gipper]

Gorbachev says none was made but you continue to embrace Putin's lie that it was.

No he didn’t. Stop believing propaganda. How many times must I tell you this?

 

[toomuchtime_]

No he didn’t. Stop believing propaganda. How many times must I tell you this?

You saw his words and Gorbachev clearly did say there were no assurances about NATO expansion, and while I understand your reluctance to stop touting Putin propaganda, but here it is again, Gorbachev's own words.

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...

www.brookings.edu

You don't have to be loyal to Putin anymore; he's on his way out.

 

[Magnus]

Nice try but several million saw and heard Obama promising something.
We know your mental illness can't handle facts.

Several million saw and heard Obama promising something? That is what you call a fact?

Yeah, you got that right. I need to be a trumptard to process that fact. Thanks for playing.

 

[krichton]

The West need to learn the mistakes of the end of the Cold War.

Treating Russia as an enemy that had to be militarily surrounded after a russian leader peacefully dismantled the Iron Curtain started the whole crap.

Jose, did western countries not pour into Russia with investments, businesses and trade? On a national security level they were still treated as an unfriendly nation because they still acted like one. No country was just going to let bygones be bygones and pretend that Russia was anything but still an autocracy with a huge arsenal. Now look at what has happened, as a result. Ukraine literally signed a treaty with Russia to give up their nuclear armaments as long as Russia and the US agreed not to use military or economic forces on their country. They took it for granted that Russia would honor that agreement and not act like the hostile nation everything thought they were. Well, we all know what has happened since then. Let's take the revisionist history down a notch.

 

[Persuader]

The Russians are engaged in an illegal invasion, but I don't see any other option after the US instigated and supported an illegal coup in 2014. Over the past eight years, Ukraine has received billion$ in NATO weapons and training, turning it into a de facto NATO presence on Russia's western border. Putin will wreck Ukraine before he allows that to stand.

Putin is dead in the water.

 

[toobfreak]

Russian Have Started Retreating

Must be low on Vodka. Let us know when the Ukrains take Moscow!

 

[Litwin]

Must be low on Vodka. Let us know when the Ukrains take Moscow!

"A day may come when men's courage will fail, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day, THIS DAY WE FIGHT" GLORY TO UKRAINE. Your last video says it all, Jake. Ukrainian soldiers are greeted with open arms by a loving family. Meanwhile, in the horde , the soldiers' family frustratingly awaits the money promised them.....

 

[Litwin]

Everyone is happy to see the Russians leave, even the Russian soldiers.

"The Impending Total Collapse of moscow Forces:" Gen. Ben Hodges on Ukraine | Amanpour and Company​

 

[gipper]

You saw his words and Gorbachev clearly did say there were no assurances about NATO expansion, and while I understand your reluctance to stop touting Putin propaganda, but here it is again, Gorbachev's own words.

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...

www.brookings.edu

You don't have to be loyal to Putin anymore; he's on his way out.

Now this from someone who was there..

My obituary of Gorbachev brought interview requests from three major Russian media organizations. At the risk of being labeled “a Russian agent” I accepted. It was an interesting experience. Russians tend to see NATO on Russia’s border’s as Gorbachev’s fault for not getting in writing the George H. W. Bush administration’s guarantee that NATO would not move one inch to the East if Gorbachev permitted the reunification of Germany. This is known as “Gorbachev’s mistake.”

I think this misinterpretation of what Gorbachev’s mistake was can be cleared up with a question: If a government does not respect its word, why would it respect its signature? Indeed, we have seen with later US regimes the breaking of arms limitation agreements that were signed.
How the Cold War Was Resurrected - LewRockwell

 

[Litwin]

She is a trip. "An interesting moment in this conflict?" Try to control yourself, girl.

i hope you can use captures , pootler´s propaganda has changed the tone ))

 

[Litwin]

Must be low on Vodka. Let us know when the Ukrains take Moscow!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now this from someone who was there..

My obituary of Gorbachev brought interview requests from three major Russian media organizations. At the risk of being labeled “a Russian agent” I accepted. It was an interesting experience. Russians tend to see NATO on Russia’s border’s as Gorbachev’s fault for not getting in writing the George H. W. Bush administration’s guarantee that NATO would not move one inch to the East if Gorbachev permitted the reunification of Germany. This is known as “Gorbachev’s mistake.”

I think this misinterpretation of what Gorbachev’s mistake was can be cleared up with a question: If a government does not respect its word, why would it respect its signature? Indeed, we have seen with later US regimes the breaking of arms limitation agreements that were signed.
How the Cold War Was Resurrected - LewRockwell

Wah.......recently freed nations joined NATO as protection against their captor.
The west was mean to Russia. Wahh.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Now this from someone who was there..

My obituary of Gorbachev brought interview requests from three major Russian media organizations. At the risk of being labeled “a Russian agent” I accepted. It was an interesting experience. Russians tend to see NATO on Russia’s border’s as Gorbachev’s fault for not getting in writing the George H. W. Bush administration’s guarantee that NATO would not move one inch to the East if Gorbachev permitted the reunification of Germany. This is known as “Gorbachev’s mistake.”

I think this misinterpretation of what Gorbachev’s mistake was can be cleared up with a question: If a government does not respect its word, why would it respect its signature? Indeed, we have seen with later US regimes the breaking of arms limitation agreements that were signed.
How the Cold War Was Resurrected - LewRockwell

Again you prove you are incapable of putting up a post without lying. He was there only in the sense he was alive at that time, but he played no part in the Bush administration or the negotiations. You need to stop thinking you are clever enough to get away with these lies.

 

[gipper]

Again you prove you are incapable of putting up a post without lying. He was there only in the sense he was alive at that time, but he played no part in the Bush administration or the negotiations. You need to stop thinking you are clever enough to get away with these lies.

Lol. Yes…lies are truth and truth are lies, in your dystopian world.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Lol. Yes…lies are truth and truth are lies, in your dystopian world.

No, lies are lies and truth is truth. Gorbachev says the expansion of NATO was never discussed and you dredge up some nobody from the Reagan administration who played no role in the negotiations to contradict Gorbachev. Once again you show it is impossible for you to put up a post without telling another lie.

 

[Litwin]

 

[José]

Originally posted by krichton
Jose, did western countries not pour into Russia with investments, businesses and trade? On a national security level they were still treated as an unfriendly nation because they still acted like one. No country was just going to let bygones be bygones and pretend that Russia was anything but still an autocracy with a huge arsenal.

The only one engaged in historic revisionism here is you, krichton.

When the US decided to expand NATO Russia was considered a nascent democracy in the West. That was 8 years before Putin came to power.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Debate within the American government as to whether enlargement of NATO was feasible or desirable began during the George H.W. Bush administration. By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen Euro-American hegemony.

Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There was no russian autocracy, unfriendliness towards the West in 1992.

Russian imperialism, just like US imperialism, towards her neighbors is an undeniable historical fact...

But you cannot punish America or Russia for historic events that happened 50, 100 years ago. And no individual or nation should be punish because there is a probability they will committ a crime or military aggression in the future. Every judicial system in the world considers this an aberration of thought.

You point your finger to an imaginary, non-existent russian imperialism in 1992 and ignores the very real western imperialism towards Russia because let's face it, the policy of surrounding a country's border with military bases fits the definition of imperialism perfectly.

If China were setting up military bases in the Caribbean in order to surround the Gulf of Mexico everybody would be calling it what it really was: sheer, naked chinese imperialism.

America and its european allies often hide the expansion of their sphere of influence behind a moral, ideological facade (defence of democracy, human rights, genocide prevention, etc...).

The problem is they couldn't even wait for Russia to become a real autocratic state to start surrounding the country with american military bases.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The only one engaged in historic revisionism here is you, krichton.

When the US decided to expand NATO Russia was considered a nascent democracy in the West. That was 8 years before Putin came to power.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Debate within the American government as to whether enlargement of NATO was feasible or desirable began during the George H.W. Bush administration. By mid-1992, a consensus emerged within the administration that NATO enlargement was a wise realpolitik measure to strengthen Euro-American hegemony.

Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

There was no russian autocracy, unfriendliness towards the West in 1992.

Russian imperialism, just like US imperialism, towards her neighbors is an undeniable historical fact...

But you cannot punish America or Russia for historic events that happened 50, 100 years ago. And no individual or nation should be punish because there is a probability they will committ a crime or military aggression in the future. Every judicial system in the world considers this an aberration of thought.

You point your finger to an imaginary, non-existent russian imperialism in 1992 and ignores the very real western imperialism towards Russia because let's face it, the policy of surrounding a country's border with military bases fits the definition of imperialism perfectly.

If China were setting up military bases in the Caribbean in order to surround the Gulf of Mexico everybody would be calling it what it really was: sheer, naked chinese imperialism.

America and its european allies often hide the expansion of their sphere of influence behind a moral, ideological facade (defence of democracy, human rights, genocide prevention, etc...).

The problem is they couldn't even wait for Russia to become a real autocratic state to start surrounding the country with american military bases.

the policy of surrounding a country's border with military bases fits the definition of imperialism perfectly.

Military bases in the countries previously enslaved by Russia is imperialism?
They should have all remained defenseless instead. It's not like Russia would ever do anything.
Like invade Georgia or Ukraine.
Poor Russia. Biggest country in the world, biggest inferiority complex.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Toddsterpatriot
Military bases in the countries previously enslaved by Russia is imperialism?

No argument here. Russia (the dominant part of the USSR) really imposed an authoritarian political system on Eastern Europe at the end of WWII. But stop for a moment and ask yourself why Russia ended up imposing communism on those nations. Russia was defending herself from the most recent aggression from western Europe. One of the countless invasions the country suffered at the hands of western europeans.

For the last 200 years Russia has been claiming that it needs a buffer zone to better protect herself from aggression coming from the West.

Ironically, the example you chose to justify the military encirclement of Russia is the most eloquent validation of Russia's need of a security buffer. The country has thousands of nukes, it's true... but she wants to have at least a chance to defend herself conventionally before the whole world, including Russia, is incinerated in a nuclear holocaust.

It makes all the sense in the world.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No argument here. Russia (the dominant part of the USSR) really imposed an authoritarian political system on Eastern Europe at the end of WWII. But stop for a moment and ask yourself why Russia ended up imposing communism on those nations. Russia was defending herself from the most recent aggression from western Europe. One of the countless invasions the country suffered at the hands of western europeans.

For the last 200 years Russia has been claiming that it needs a buffer zone to better protect herself from aggression coming from the West.

Ironically, the example you chose to justify the military encirclement of Russia is the most eloquent validation of Russia's need of a security buffer. The country has thousands of nukes, it's true... but she wants to have at least a chance to defend herself conventionally before the whole world, including Russia, is incinerated in a nuclear holocaust.

It makes all the sense in the world.

But stop for a moment and ask yourself why Russia ended up imposing communism on those nations. Russia was defending herself from the most recent aggression from western Europe. One of the countless invasions the country suffered at the hands of western europeans.

Russia was invaded by Germany. That gives her no right to enslave Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Yugoslavia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

but she wants to have at least a chance to defend herself conventionally

So do her neighbors. How big a buffer zone of Russian territory should they be given?