ADVERTISEMENT

This might be a little tougher than Putin thought...

Which is entirely Putin's fault.
Is that more or less important than avoiding them in the first place?

If you’re in the Merkel thought camp that said extending NATO to Ukraine will be viewed by Putin as a ‘declaration of war’, and the neocons do it anyway, do you charge them with naïveté, negligence, or just indifference?
 
Is that more or less important than avoiding them in the first place?

If you’re in the Merkel thought camp that said extending NATO to Ukraine will be viewed by Putin as a ‘declaration of war’, and the neocons do it anyway, do you charge them with naïveté, negligence, or just indifference?
I charge Putin with invading another sovereign country.
 
Is that more or less important than avoiding them in the first place?

If you’re in the Merkel thought camp that said extending NATO to Ukraine will be viewed by Putin as a ‘declaration of war’, and the neocons do it anyway, do you charge them with naïveté, negligence, or just indifference?
Fact is that NATO didn't extend to Ukraine. Putin invaded preemptively, which argues that NATO should have extended to Ukraine to begin with, which would have avoided any invasion.
 
I charge Putin with invading another sovereign country.
Agreed, but lots and lots of people said, ‘If you do X, it will provoke a war.’

They were correct, so how do we assess the judgement of the neocons who ignored them?

Do you think they were naive, or do you think they understood it would provoke a war and proceeded so that it did?
 
Fact is that NATO didn't extend to Ukraine. Putin invaded preemptively, which argues that NATO should have extended to Ukraine to begin with, which would have avoided any invasion.
At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would eventually become a NATO member with the MAP as an integral part of the process, and Ukraine's right to determine its future and foreign policy without outside interference.[10]
 
At the June 2021 Brussels summit, NATO leaders reiterated the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine would eventually become a NATO member with the MAP as an integral part of the process, and Ukraine's right to determine its future and foreign policy without outside interference.[10]
Russia lost its buffer countries as they begged to be let into NATO lest Russia devour them again. That 2008 decision was voided 2 years later when Russia installed their own man in Ukraine.
 
Last edited:
Russia lost its buffer countries as they begged to be let into NATO lest Russia devour them again. That 2008 decision was voided 2 years later when Russia installed their own man in Ukraine.
…he said without evidence.

A total of 3,149 international observers did monitor the 17 January presidential election in Ukraine.[229][230]

On 18 January 2010, the OSCE announced it would send same number of observers to monitor Ukraine's second round of the election as in the first round.[231] At the same time it called for bringing Ukraine's election laws in line with international norms[232] but nevertheless it endorsed the first round of the Ukrainian presidential poll, saying it was of "high quality" and demonstrated "significant progress".[233]

After the second round of the election international observers and the OSCE called the election transparent and honest.[159]
 
Thirty years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia is still peddling the old myth of Western betrayal of Russia by expanding NATO eastward after the end of the Cold War. Both Vladimir Putin and his Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov have used this myth to demand formal Western security guarantees and that NATO rules out future membership for Ukraine and other ex-Soviet republics. Kristina Spohr explains why this narrative is based on not only a misinterpretation of the treaty that reunified Germany, but also a misunderstanding of the diplomatic process that led to it.


The Kremlin under Putin finds the security order developed in Europe since the end of the Cold War unacceptable. Fundamental to this order is the principle (enshrined in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act) that each sovereign state is free to choose its own alliances. Russia wants to create instead a buffer zone between itself and the West, thinning the US presence in Europe and once again dividing the continent into spheres of influence. Putin’s reasoning is straightforward enough: he has long viewed NATO enlargement as a threat. To bolster his case, he argues that the Alliance’s ‘open door’ policy is in direct contradiction to ‘Western assurances’ given to the Soviet leadership in 1990 and to Russia after 1991. He is wrong. No such assurances were ever made.

 
Agreed, but lots and lots of people said, ‘If you do X, it will provoke a war.’

They were correct, so how do we assess the judgement of the neocons who ignored them?

Do you think they were naive, or do you think they understood it would provoke a war and proceeded so that it did?
Keep coming up with excuses for Putins actions…

He’s a big boy and responsible for what he decided to do.
 
Putin’s reasoning is straightforward enough: he has long viewed NATO enlargement as a threat. To bolster his case, he argues that the Alliance’s ‘open door’ policy is in direct contradiction to ‘Western assurances’ given to the Soviet leadership in 1990 and to Russia after 1991. He is wrong. No such assurances were ever made.

Good revisionist history turns up new source information to change existing understandings.

Even in 2008, when the overtures were made public, it was known internally this was risking war. The important thing to a historian about Ambassador Burns cable is that it wasn't a press release, or spin for public consumption, but secret, internal relaying of information and genuine assessment.

The neocons betrayed peace and American interests in their pursuit of American empire and forever war.

Documents at https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-...on-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early.

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner

Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”

Washington D.C., 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 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 (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

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.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

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.

The conversations before Kohl’s assurance involved explicit discussion of NATO expansion, the Central and East European countries, and how to convince the Soviets to accept unification. For example, on February 6, 1990, when Genscher met with British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, the British record showed Genscher saying, “The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.” (See Document 2)

Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face with Gorbachev.

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)

Afterwards, Baker wrote to Helmut Kohl who would meet with the Soviet leader on the next day, with much of the very same language. Baker reported: “And then I put the following question to him [Gorbachev]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options [….] He then added, ‘Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’” Baker added in parentheses, for Kohl’s benefit, “By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable.” (See Document 8)
 
Well-briefed by the American secretary of state, the West German chancellor understood a key Soviet bottom line, and assured Gorbachev on February 10, 1990: “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.” (See Document 9) After this meeting, Kohl could hardly contain his excitement at Gorbachev’s agreement in principle for German unification and, as part of the Helsinki formula that states choose their own alliances, so Germany could choose NATO. Kohl described in his memoirs walking all night around Moscow – but still understanding there was a price still to pay.

All the Western foreign ministers were on board with Genscher, Kohl, and Baker. Next came the British foreign minister, Douglas Hurd, on April 11, 1990. At this point, the East Germans had voted overwhelmingly for the deutschmark and for rapid unification, in the March 18 elections in which Kohl had surprised almost all observers with a real victory. Kohl’s analyses (first explained to Bush on December 3, 1989) that the GDR’s collapse would open all possibilities, that he had to run to get to the head of the train, that he needed U.S. backing, that unification could happen faster than anyone thought possible – all turned out to be correct. Monetary union would proceed as early as July and the assurances about security kept coming. Hurd reinforced the Baker-Genscher-Kohl message in his meeting with Gorbachev in Moscow, April 11, 1990, saying that Britain clearly “recognized the importance of doing nothing to prejudice Soviet interests and dignity.” (See Document 15)

The Baker conversation with Shevardnadze on May 4, 1990, as Baker described it in his own report to President Bush, most eloquently described what Western leaders were telling Gorbachev exactly at the moment: “I used your speech and our recognition of the need to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce a new legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive.” (See Document 17)

Baker said it again, directly to Gorbachev on May 18, 1990 in Moscow, giving Gorbachev his “nine points,” which included the transformation of NATO, strengthening European structures, keeping Germany non-nuclear, and taking Soviet security interests into account. Baker started off his remarks, “Before saying a few words about the German issue, I wanted to emphasize that our policies are not aimed at separating Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union. We had that policy before. But today we are interested in building a stable Europe, and doing it together with you.” (See Document 18)

The French leader Francois Mitterrand was not in a mind-meld with the Americans, quite the contrary, as evidenced by his telling Gorbachev in Moscow on May 25, 1990, that he was “personally in favor of gradually dismantling the military blocs”; but Mitterrand continued the cascade of assurances by saying the West must “create security conditions for you, as well as European security as a whole.” (See Document 19) Mitterrand immediately wrote Bush in a “cher George” letter about his conversation with the Soviet leader, that “we would certainly not refuse to detail the guarantees that he would have a right to expect for his country’s security.” (See Document 20)

At the Washington summit on May 31, 1990, Bush went out of his way to assure Gorbachev that Germany in NATO would never be directed at the USSR: “Believe me, we are not pushing Germany towards unification, and it is not us who determines the pace of this process. And of course, we have no intention, even in our thoughts, to harm the Soviet Union in any fashion. That is why we are speaking in favor of German unification in NATO without ignoring the wider context of the CSCE, taking the traditional economic ties between the two German states into consideration. Such a model, in our view, corresponds to the Soviet interests as well.” (See Document 21)

The “Iron Lady” also pitched in, after the Washington summit, in her meeting with Gorbachev in London on June 8, 1990. Thatcher anticipated the moves the Americans (with her support) would take in the early July NATO conference to support Gorbachev with descriptions of the transformation of NATO towards a more political, less militarily threatening, alliance. She said to Gorbachev: “We must find ways to give the Soviet Union confidence that its security would be assured…. CSCE could be an umbrella for all this, as well as being the forum which brought the Soviet Union fully into discussion about the future of Europe.” (See Document 22)

The NATO London Declaration on July 5, 1990 had quite a positive effect on deliberations in Moscow, according to most accounts, giving Gorbachev significant ammunition to counter his hardliners at the Party Congress which was taking place at that moment. Some versions of this history assert that an advance copy was provided to Shevardnadze’s aides, while others describe just an alert that allowed those aides to take the wire service copy and produce a Soviet positive assessment before the military or hardliners could call it propaganda.

As Kohl said to Gorbachev in Moscow on July 15, 1990, as they worked out the final deal on German unification: “We know what awaits NATO in the future, and I think you are now in the know as well,” referring to the NATO London Declaration. (See Document 23)

In his phone call to Gorbachev on July 17, Bush meant to reinforce the success of the Kohl-Gorbachev talks and the message of the London Declaration. Bush explained: “So what we tried to do was to take account of your concerns expressed to me and others, and we did it in the following ways: by our joint declaration on non-aggression; in our invitation to you to come to NATO; in our agreement to open NATO to regular diplomatic contact with your government and those of the Eastern European countries; and our offer on assurances on the future size of the armed forces of a united Germany – an issue I know you discussed with Helmut Kohl. We also fundamentally changed our military approach on conventional and nuclear forces. We conveyed the idea of an expanded, stronger CSCE with new institutions in which the USSR can share and be part of the new Europe.” (See Document 24)

The documents show that Gorbachev agreed to German unification in NATO as the result of this cascade of assurances, and on the basis of his own analysis that the future of the Soviet Union depended on its integration into Europe, for which Germany would be the decisive actor. He and most of his allies believed that some version of the common European home was still possible and would develop alongside the transformation of NATO to lead to a more inclusive and integrated European space, that the post-Cold War settlement would take account of the Soviet security interests. The alliance with Germany would not only overcome the Cold War but also turn on its head the legacy of the Great Patriotic War.

But inside the U.S. government, a different discussion continued, a debate about relations between NATO and Eastern Europe. Opinions differed, but the suggestion from the Defense Department as of October 25, 1990 was to leave “the door ajar” for East European membership in NATO. (See Document 27) The view of the State Department was that NATO expansion was not on the agenda, because it was not in the interest of the U.S. to organize “an anti-Soviet coalition” that extended to the Soviet borders, not least because it might reverse the positive trends in the Soviet Union. (See Document 26) The Bush administration took the latter view. And that’s what the Soviets heard.

As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, “We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, “Nothing of the sort will happen.” (See Document 28)

When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July 1991, Woerner told the Russians that “We should not allow […] the isolation of the USSR from the European community.” According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, “Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view).” (See Document 30)
 
Is that more or less important than avoiding them in the first place?

If you’re in the Merkel thought camp that said extending NATO to Ukraine will be viewed by Putin as a ‘declaration of war’, and the neocons do it anyway, do you charge them with naïveté, negligence, or just indifference?

You love playing the blame game here, I get it. I don’t want to argue with you because it’s pointless and we’ll never agree.

But regardless of whose fault it is, it’s happening now. Do you think the US should just withdraw all support or what?
 
You love playing the blame game here, I get it. I don’t want to argue with you because it’s pointless and we’ll never agree.

But regardless of whose fault it is, it’s happening now. Do you think the US should just withdraw all support or what?
I want folks wide eyed about the policies that have us on the brink of WW3 before the same people that enacted those policies get us into WW3.

I agree with Obama.

So when I talked with the president in the Oval Office in late January, I again raised this question of deterrent credibility. “The argument is made,” I said, “that Vladimir Putin watched you in Syria and thought, He’s too logical, he’s too rational, he’s too into retrenchment. I’m going to push him a little bit further in Ukraine.”

[President Barack] Obama didn’t much like my line of inquiry. “Look, this theory is so easily disposed of that I’m always puzzled by how people make the argument. I don’t think anybody thought that George W. Bush was overly rational or cautious in his use of military force. And as I recall, because apparently nobody in this town does, Putin went into Georgia on Bush’s watch, right smack dab in the middle of us having over 100,000 troops deployed in Iraq.” Obama was referring to Putin’s 2008 invasion of Georgia, a former Soviet republic, which was undertaken for many of the same reasons Putin later invaded Ukraine—to keep an ex–Soviet republic in Russia’s sphere of influence.

“Putin acted in Ukraine in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp. And he improvised in a way to hang on to his control there,” he said. “He’s done the exact same thing in Syria, at enormous cost to the well-being of his own country. And the notion that somehow Russia is in a stronger position now, in Syria or in Ukraine, than they were before they invaded Ukraine or before he had to deploy military forces to Syria is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of power in foreign affairs or in the world generally. Real power means you can get what you want without having to exert violence. Russia was much more powerful when Ukraine looked like an independent country but was a kleptocracy that he could pull the strings on.”

Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.

“The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” he said.

I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic.

“It’s realistic,” he said. “But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there’s always going to be some ambiguity.”
 
I want folks wide eyed about the policies that have us on the brink of WW3 before the same people that enacted those policies get us into WW3.

I agree with Obama.

So when I talked with the president in the Oval Office in late January, I again raised this question of deterrent credibility. “The argument is made,” I said, “that Vladimir Putin watched you in Syria and thought, He’s too logical, he’s too rational, he’s too into retrenchment. I’m going to push him a little bit further in Ukraine.”

[President Barack] Obama didn’t much like my line of inquiry. “Look, this theory is so easily disposed of that I’m always puzzled by how people make the argument. I don’t think anybody thought that George W. Bush was overly rational or cautious in his use of military force. And as I recall, because apparently nobody in this town does, Putin went into Georgia on Bush’s watch, right smack dab in the middle of us having over 100,000 troops deployed in Iraq.” Obama was referring to Putin’s 2008 invasion of Georgia, a former Soviet republic, which was undertaken for many of the same reasons Putin later invaded Ukraine—to keep an ex–Soviet republic in Russia’s sphere of influence.

“Putin acted in Ukraine in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp. And he improvised in a way to hang on to his control there,” he said. “He’s done the exact same thing in Syria, at enormous cost to the well-being of his own country. And the notion that somehow Russia is in a stronger position now, in Syria or in Ukraine, than they were before they invaded Ukraine or before he had to deploy military forces to Syria is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of power in foreign affairs or in the world generally. Real power means you can get what you want without having to exert violence. Russia was much more powerful when Ukraine looked like an independent country but was a kleptocracy that he could pull the strings on.”

Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.

“The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” he said.

I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic.

“It’s realistic,” he said. “But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there’s always going to be some ambiguity.”
Regardless of how we got here, your logic that the west should do nothing in the face of Russian aggression is deeply flawed on multiple fronts:
  • Russia is taking, by force, a land that they have a dubious claim to. You know who is watching the collective western response? China (Taiwan), North Korea (SK), Iran (Israel) and many other would be aggressor states. If we want long term global peace and security we have to collectively put down those that would threaten it.
  • Our country has prospered greatly as a result of being the backbone of global trade over the past century. Our support in WW2 and subsequent reconstruction led to multiple generations of unprecedented economic prosperity. We should stand for a free and open Ukraine. It will benefit us economically in the long run. Russia is heading in the opposite direction.
  • Why would Russia stop in Ukraine? Many of their leaders and propagandists have outright claimed they will continue their aggression farther west. Again, they are a threat to long term peace and security.
  • Russia has deployed savage terrorist-like tactics against defenseless civilians in pursuit of an unjust war. Should we allow their war crimes to go unpunished? I believe humanity has a moral obligation to stand up to such behaviors.
Net net there are economic, security, and moral reasons to fight Russian aggression. Unfortunately too many people are like you and afraid of the big bad Russians. They are the pussies that slow rolled the F16s, they are the pussies that slow rolled the Patriot batteries, the Abrams and the ATACMS. They are the pussies that embolden the war criminals leading Russia today.

I’m sure you will call me a neocon, that’s fine. I much prefer that label over the thought of being a modern day Neville Chamberlain like yourself.
 
Regardless of how we got here,

My issue with that is like with Iran, first examine how we ‘got here’ to avoid ‘getting there’ with other nations. In Iran we regime changed out a democracy with sovereign interest for a dictatorship that understood its fealty to us.
Let’s cut that shit out, because it makes things even worse! e.g. ‘here’ with present day Iran, the radicalized response to our intervention.

We shouldn’t just hand wave that stuff away, and forget how we end up in worse situations.

your logic that the west should do nothing in the face of Russian aggression

I contest the idea Russia’s aggression occurs in a vacuum. I contend diplomatic hubris leads to real tragedy.
The Bucharest NATO summit that first opened the door for Ukraine and Georgia to be admitted closed in July of 2008. August of 2008 the Russians support the breakaway in Georgia.
After a deadly insurrection in Kiev in 2014 that toppled the elected head of state, the Russians responded by seizing Crimea.

Can you imagine if a foreign diplomat was caught on tape before Jan 6th talking about overturning the election and working with Trump and his people to do it?
How would it be perceived?
Zimmerman Telegram level shit, right?
 
I want folks wide eyed about the policies that have us on the brink of WW3 before the same people that enacted those policies get us into WW3.

I agree with Obama.

So when I talked with the president in the Oval Office in late January, I again raised this question of deterrent credibility. “The argument is made,” I said, “that Vladimir Putin watched you in Syria and thought, He’s too logical, he’s too rational, he’s too into retrenchment. I’m going to push him a little bit further in Ukraine.”

[President Barack] Obama didn’t much like my line of inquiry. “Look, this theory is so easily disposed of that I’m always puzzled by how people make the argument. I don’t think anybody thought that George W. Bush was overly rational or cautious in his use of military force. And as I recall, because apparently nobody in this town does, Putin went into Georgia on Bush’s watch, right smack dab in the middle of us having over 100,000 troops deployed in Iraq.” Obama was referring to Putin’s 2008 invasion of Georgia, a former Soviet republic, which was undertaken for many of the same reasons Putin later invaded Ukraine—to keep an ex–Soviet republic in Russia’s sphere of influence.

“Putin acted in Ukraine in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp. And he improvised in a way to hang on to his control there,” he said. “He’s done the exact same thing in Syria, at enormous cost to the well-being of his own country. And the notion that somehow Russia is in a stronger position now, in Syria or in Ukraine, than they were before they invaded Ukraine or before he had to deploy military forces to Syria is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of power in foreign affairs or in the world generally. Real power means you can get what you want without having to exert violence. Russia was much more powerful when Ukraine looked like an independent country but was a kleptocracy that he could pull the strings on.”

Obama’s theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.

“The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military domination by Russia no matter what we do,” he said.

I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic.

“It’s realistic,” he said. “But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there’s always going to be some ambiguity.”

So you have no opinion on what we should do in Ukraine. Okay.
 
Russia has filed criminal charges against Masha Gessen, staff writer for the New Yorker. If you can struggle your way past Gessen being non-binary trans who uses they/them, Gessen is an excellent writer with great sources inside Russia owing to dual citizenship and decades spent living inside Russia. Gessen’s crime was speaking about Bahkmut.
 
GABD5dxXUAAnnto
 
Bolded is alarming if true.

Changes to include use of commercial recruitment firms to carry out more targeted conscription, say officials

The Ukrainian government is planning to change its conscription practices as it seeks to sustain fighting capacity after nearly two years of full-fledged war with Russia.

The changes, expected to be announced this week, will include the use of commercial recruitment companies to carry out more targeted conscription and to reassure conscripts they will be deployed in roles that match their skills and not simply sent to the front, according to one senior official.


“Some people are scared, scared to die, scared to shoot, but it doesn’t mean they can’t be involved in other activities … Now we have a new minister with a new approach,” Oleksiy Danilov, the secretary of Ukraine’s security council, told the Guardian.

In early September, the president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, sacked Oleksii Reznikov, who had been defence minister since the beginning of the war, and replaced him with Rustem Umerov, who spent the early part of the war working on doomed negotiations with Russia. On Friday, Zelenskiy said he expected Umerov’s ministry to provide him with a package of new mobilisation policies this week.

“The plan will be worked out and all the answers will be there – next week I will see this plan,” Zelenskiy told a news conference, without giving further details.

Danilov said the army would work with two of Ukraine’s biggest recruitment companies in order to identify people with specific skills, and to dissuade skilled Ukrainians who wanted to help the army but did not want to go to the front from trying to evade the draft.

“The mobilisation will become more flexible, those specialities that are required will be announced, and people will be volunteering for a concrete position. For example, they need welders or mechanics and so on,” said Danilov.

A source in the defence ministry confirmed that contracts had been signed with recruitment companies, but did not give any further details. It was not immediately clear how involved the recruitment companies would be in the process, nor at what level general recruitment for frontline work would continue alongside the more targeted process.
Zelenskiy’s announcement comes as Ukraine prepares to face another winter at war, with widespread fatigue at the front and amid society at large. The summer and autumn Ukrainian counteroffensive has failed to win back large amounts of territory, and there are increasing voices among Ukraine’s western partners suggesting in private that sooner or later Kyiv may need to consider attempting a negotiated end to the war.

In the first months of the war, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians volunteered to fight, as part of a wave of patriotic determination that shocked Russia and repelled its initial advances. But as the war has dragged on, most people who are willing to fight have already signed up, and many of those already at the front are injured or exhausted.

Increasingly, the army has had to turn to mobilisation to fill the ranks. Viral videos have shown men snatched from the street to be conscripted, and there have been numerous corruption scandals of officials taking bribes to provide exemption. In August, Zelenskiy fired every regional recruitment chief.

Once conscripted, recruits get a few weeks of training and can then be sent to the front. Many Ukrainians say if called upon they would go to the army, but many men of conscription age who do not want to be sent to the front have spent weeks or months hiding at home, trying to avoid the roaming squads of mobilisation officers. Many join Telegram groups in which people share tips on where mobilisation officers are working on any given day.

In the summer, sources in Odesa explained a popular scheme in the city, whereby for a fee of $5,000 in cash, men who did not want to serve could receive a fake medical report suggesting serious spinal issues, with which they would be declared exempt from conscription and be allowed to leave the country.


Danilov admitted there was a recruitment issue but said Russian propaganda was exaggerating the scale of the problem. “Russia is trying to heat up this issue, saying that we don’t have enough soldiers, that we have problems with mobilisation … There are always problems in life, let’s not overestimate it,” he said.
 
Well-briefed by the American secretary of state, the West German chancellor understood a key Soviet bottom line, and assured Gorbachev on February 10, 1990: “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.” (See Document 9) After this meeting, Kohl could hardly contain his excitement at Gorbachev’s agreement in principle for German unification and, as part of the Helsinki formula that states choose their own alliances, so Germany could choose NATO. Kohl described in his memoirs walking all night around Moscow – but still understanding there was a price still to pay.

All the Western foreign ministers were on board with Genscher, Kohl, and Baker. Next came the British foreign minister, Douglas Hurd, on April 11, 1990. At this point, the East Germans had voted overwhelmingly for the deutschmark and for rapid unification, in the March 18 elections in which Kohl had surprised almost all observers with a real victory. Kohl’s analyses (first explained to Bush on December 3, 1989) that the GDR’s collapse would open all possibilities, that he had to run to get to the head of the train, that he needed U.S. backing, that unification could happen faster than anyone thought possible – all turned out to be correct. Monetary union would proceed as early as July and the assurances about security kept coming. Hurd reinforced the Baker-Genscher-Kohl message in his meeting with Gorbachev in Moscow, April 11, 1990, saying that Britain clearly “recognized the importance of doing nothing to prejudice Soviet interests and dignity.” (See Document 15)

The Baker conversation with Shevardnadze on May 4, 1990, as Baker described it in his own report to President Bush, most eloquently described what Western leaders were telling Gorbachev exactly at the moment: “I used your speech and our recognition of the need to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce a new legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive.” (See Document 17)

Baker said it again, directly to Gorbachev on May 18, 1990 in Moscow, giving Gorbachev his “nine points,” which included the transformation of NATO, strengthening European structures, keeping Germany non-nuclear, and taking Soviet security interests into account. Baker started off his remarks, “Before saying a few words about the German issue, I wanted to emphasize that our policies are not aimed at separating Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union. We had that policy before. But today we are interested in building a stable Europe, and doing it together with you.” (See Document 18)

The French leader Francois Mitterrand was not in a mind-meld with the Americans, quite the contrary, as evidenced by his telling Gorbachev in Moscow on May 25, 1990, that he was “personally in favor of gradually dismantling the military blocs”; but Mitterrand continued the cascade of assurances by saying the West must “create security conditions for you, as well as European security as a whole.” (See Document 19) Mitterrand immediately wrote Bush in a “cher George” letter about his conversation with the Soviet leader, that “we would certainly not refuse to detail the guarantees that he would have a right to expect for his country’s security.” (See Document 20)

At the Washington summit on May 31, 1990, Bush went out of his way to assure Gorbachev that Germany in NATO would never be directed at the USSR: “Believe me, we are not pushing Germany towards unification, and it is not us who determines the pace of this process. And of course, we have no intention, even in our thoughts, to harm the Soviet Union in any fashion. That is why we are speaking in favor of German unification in NATO without ignoring the wider context of the CSCE, taking the traditional economic ties between the two German states into consideration. Such a model, in our view, corresponds to the Soviet interests as well.” (See Document 21)

The “Iron Lady” also pitched in, after the Washington summit, in her meeting with Gorbachev in London on June 8, 1990. Thatcher anticipated the moves the Americans (with her support) would take in the early July NATO conference to support Gorbachev with descriptions of the transformation of NATO towards a more political, less militarily threatening, alliance. She said to Gorbachev: “We must find ways to give the Soviet Union confidence that its security would be assured…. CSCE could be an umbrella for all this, as well as being the forum which brought the Soviet Union fully into discussion about the future of Europe.” (See Document 22)

The NATO London Declaration on July 5, 1990 had quite a positive effect on deliberations in Moscow, according to most accounts, giving Gorbachev significant ammunition to counter his hardliners at the Party Congress which was taking place at that moment. Some versions of this history assert that an advance copy was provided to Shevardnadze’s aides, while others describe just an alert that allowed those aides to take the wire service copy and produce a Soviet positive assessment before the military or hardliners could call it propaganda.

As Kohl said to Gorbachev in Moscow on July 15, 1990, as they worked out the final deal on German unification: “We know what awaits NATO in the future, and I think you are now in the know as well,” referring to the NATO London Declaration. (See Document 23)

In his phone call to Gorbachev on July 17, Bush meant to reinforce the success of the Kohl-Gorbachev talks and the message of the London Declaration. Bush explained: “So what we tried to do was to take account of your concerns expressed to me and others, and we did it in the following ways: by our joint declaration on non-aggression; in our invitation to you to come to NATO; in our agreement to open NATO to regular diplomatic contact with your government and those of the Eastern European countries; and our offer on assurances on the future size of the armed forces of a united Germany – an issue I know you discussed with Helmut Kohl. We also fundamentally changed our military approach on conventional and nuclear forces. We conveyed the idea of an expanded, stronger CSCE with new institutions in which the USSR can share and be part of the new Europe.” (See Document 24)

The documents show that Gorbachev agreed to German unification in NATO as the result of this cascade of assurances, and on the basis of his own analysis that the future of the Soviet Union depended on its integration into Europe, for which Germany would be the decisive actor. He and most of his allies believed that some version of the common European home was still possible and would develop alongside the transformation of NATO to lead to a more inclusive and integrated European space, that the post-Cold War settlement would take account of the Soviet security interests. The alliance with Germany would not only overcome the Cold War but also turn on its head the legacy of the Great Patriotic War.

But inside the U.S. government, a different discussion continued, a debate about relations between NATO and Eastern Europe. Opinions differed, but the suggestion from the Defense Department as of October 25, 1990 was to leave “the door ajar” for East European membership in NATO. (See Document 27) The view of the State Department was that NATO expansion was not on the agenda, because it was not in the interest of the U.S. to organize “an anti-Soviet coalition” that extended to the Soviet borders, not least because it might reverse the positive trends in the Soviet Union. (See Document 26) The Bush administration took the latter view. And that’s what the Soviets heard.

As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, “We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, “Nothing of the sort will happen.” (See Document 28)

When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July 1991, Woerner told the Russians that “We should not allow […] the isolation of the USSR from the European community.” According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, “Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view).” (See Document 30)
None of that Nat Algren bibliography is, like, an actual treaty or agreement. But feel free to blame the U.S. for Russia's aggression in Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
 
My issue with that is like with Iran, first examine how we ‘got here’ to avoid ‘getting there’ with other nations. In Iran we regime changed out a democracy with sovereign interest for a dictatorship that understood its fealty to us.
Let’s cut that shit out, because it makes things even worse! e.g. ‘here’ with present day Iran, the radicalized response to our intervention.

We shouldn’t just hand wave that stuff away, and forget how we end up in worse situations.



I contest the idea Russia’s aggression occurs in a vacuum. I contend diplomatic hubris leads to real tragedy.
The Bucharest NATO summit that first opened the door for Ukraine and Georgia to be admitted closed in July of 2008. August of 2008 the Russians support the breakaway in Georgia.
After a deadly insurrection in Kiev in 2014 that toppled the elected head of state, the Russians responded by seizing Crimea.

Can you imagine if a foreign diplomat was caught on tape before Jan 6th talking about overturning the election and working with Trump and his people to do it?
How would it be perceived?
Zimmerman Telegram level shit, right?
It's never a Russian apologist post without a Victoria Newland reference. Never has a bigger deal been made of a more minor statement.
 
None of that Nat Algren bibliography is, like, an actual treaty or agreement.

Agreed, but it puts to rest the recent revisionist lie that has been floating out there since 2014 that we had not made such assurances, and that we had no inkling of how it would be perceived.

But feel free to blame the U.S. for Russia's aggression in Ukraine, Georgia, Chechnya, and elsewhere.
Chechnya? Do you call the U.S. Civil War the 'war of northern aggression' since they invaded a constituent part of the country to prevent it breaking away? Grozny looked like Sherman had rolled through by the time they were done.

Ukraine and Georgia are both interesting because the Russians reacted to the neocon desire to expand NATO in the same way. It claimed a 'duty to protect' a subset population in the country, and has enforced a partition with military force.
NATO did the same thing to Serbia. It bombed them until they submitted to an ethnic partition of their country.
Funny thing about it is that not even all NATO members acknowledge the Kosovo separation. Among the EU Spain, Slovakia, Cyprus, Romania, and Greece don't recognize the partition officially.
 
It's never a Russian apologist post without a Victoria Newland reference. Never has a bigger deal been made of a more minor statement.
Neocon exposed red-handed organizing a coup, and you want to dismiss it as a 'minor statement'.
LOL

I cannot imagine the apoplexy if a foreign diplomat had been exposed two weeks before Jan 6th discussing overthrow of the elected government with one more to their liking, and people tried to just dismiss it as a 'minor statement'.

The kind of foreign meddling we absolutely despise some people expect the rest of the world to blithely tolerate from us. I don't understand the logic.
 
Neocon exposed red-handed organizing a coup, and you want to dismiss it as a 'minor statement'.
LOL

I cannot imagine the apoplexy if a foreign diplomat had been exposed two weeks before Jan 6th discussing overthrow of the elected government with one more to their liking, and people tried to just dismiss it as a 'minor statement'.

The kind of foreign meddling we absolutely despise some people expect the rest of the world to blithely tolerate from us. I don't understand the logic.
Stating a preference is not planning a revolution.
 
Agreed, but it puts to rest the recent revisionist lie that has been floating out there since 2014 that we had not made such assurances, and that we had no inkling of how it would be perceived.


Chechnya? Do you call the U.S. Civil War the 'war of northern aggression' since they invaded a constituent part of the country to prevent it breaking away? Grozny looked like Sherman had rolled through by the time they were done.

Ukraine and Georgia are both interesting because the Russians reacted to the neocon desire to expand NATO in the same way. It claimed a 'duty to protect' a subset population in the country, and has enforced a partition with military force.
NATO did the same thing to Serbia. It bombed them until they submitted to an ethnic partition of their country.
Funny thing about it is that not even all NATO members acknowledge the Kosovo separation. Among the EU Spain, Slovakia, Cyprus, Romania, and Greece don't recognize the partition officially.
Russia is not entitled to buffer countries. Whether it was lead to believe it was or otherwise.
 
Stating a preference is not planning a revolution.

It's like you never heard the conversation:


Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, **** the EU.

Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it.

"Not for the first time in an international crisis, the US expresses frustration at the EU's efforts. Washington and Brussels have not been completely in step during the Ukraine crisis. The EU is divided and to some extent hesitant about picking a fight with Moscow. It certainly cannot win a short-term battle for Ukraine's affections with Moscow - it just does not have the cash inducements available. The EU has sought to play a longer game; banking on its attraction over time. But the US clearly is determined to take a much more activist role." -Jonathan Marcus, BBC
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT