Post WW2...we installed the Shah...it was all about oil. The Shah promised us all the oil.
Why Is It OK for Companies to Do Business with Russia?
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
Gorbachev: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.
Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object.
And it's crazy to me that you think these countries shouldn't be able to join NATO because Russia doesn't want them to. Aren't these sovereign countries? Shouldn't they able to join an alliance they feel best protects their interests? Why should they have to do what Russia wants them to do?
I don't see a link to the source, though I don't think one is needed. Your own article seems to support my my stance. See bold.
No one is saying they have to do what Russia wants them to do. In fact, Russia illustrated that very point by allowing the Berlin Wall to come down and for Germany to re-unify. All sovereignty is lost and forfeited once they join NATO. NATO is a collective OFFENSIVE alliance. It has always been anti-Russian. There is no aggression from Putin. No one with half a brain believes otherwise. Russia is surrounded by NATO and its military budget is 1/10th of the U.S. and much less than that vs. NATO. It's ridiculous.
You speak of sovereignty while the U.S. attacks anyone who doesn't bend their knee to Washington. Where's the sovereignty in that? Syria is secular and has a 10% Christian population that has lived in peace since the days of Christ. A similar situation existed in Iraq under SH. No more. The fascist NATO alliance is in bed with the apartheid state of Israel and Sunni controlled dictatorships. You know...those bastions of freedom known as Saudi Arabia, where women live in the comfort of knowing they can drive a car with no repercussions. People are allowed to profess another faith w/o fear of beheadings. Oooops! Bad example.
Did you not read the 2nd paragraph where Gorbachev says those obligations were fulfilled?
THE TESTIMONY
“I was there when we told the Russians that we were going to make them a member, we were–observer first and then a member”: Lawrence Wilkerson, 3 October 2014, on The Real News Network, at 18:54 in the interview.
“When I spoke with Baker, he agreed that he told Gorbachev that if the Soviet Union allowed German reunification and membership in NATO, the West would not expand NATO ‘one inch to the east’”: Bill Bradley, 22 August 2009, in Foreign Policy.
“Mr. Kohl chose to echo Mr. Baker, not Mr. Bush. The chancellor assured Mr. Gorbachev, as Mr. Baker had done, that ‘naturally NATO could not expand its territory’ into East Germany. … Crucially, the Gorbachev-Kohl meeting ended with a deal, as opposed to the Gorbachev-Baker session the previous day. … Mr. Kohl and his aides publicized this major concession immediately at a press conference. Then they returned home to begin merging the two Germanys under one currency and economic system”: Mary Elise Sarotte, New York Times, 29 November 2009.
“According to records from Kohl’s office, the chancellor chose to echo Baker, not Bush, since Baker’s softer line was more likely to produce the results that Kohl wanted: permission from Moscow to start reunifying Germany. Kohl thus assured Gorbachev that ‘naturally NATO could not expand its territory to the current territory of [East Germany].’ In parallel talks, Genscher delivered the same message to his Soviet counterpart, Eduard Shevardnadze, saying, ‘for us, it stands firm: NATO will not expand itself to the East.’ … But Kohl’s phrasing would quickly become heresy among the key Western decision-makers. Once Baker got back to Washington, in mid-February 1990, he fell in line with the National Security Council’s view and adopted its position. From then on, members of Bush’s foreign policy team exercised strict message discipline, making no further remarks about NATO holding at the 1989 line. Kohl, too, brought his rhetoric in line with Bush’s, as both U.S. and West German transcripts from the two leaders’ February 24–25 summit at Camp David show. Bush made his feelings about compromising with Moscow clear to Kohl: ‘To hell with that!’ he said. ‘We prevailed, they didn’t.’ … In April, Bush spelled out this thinking in a confidential telegram to French President François Mitterrand. … Bush was making it clear to Mitterrand that the dominant security organization in a post–Cold War Europe had to remain NATO — not any kind of pan-European alliance.
My opinion has nothing to do with the Trump mess. Nothing.
I don't see anything wrong with doing business with Russia. In fact, I think it should be encouraged. This is my reasoning - the more Russia depends on the US economically, the less likely Russia will want to go to war with us.
As far as hacking, etc., if that's the criteria, then Germany, France, Israel, and England would all be our enemy right now for tapping their phones and other stuff we haven't been made aware of yet. Influencing elections? We've done that recently too, in Israel, and the UK.
About the only country I wouldn't do business with right now is North Korea, and that's because they have nothing we want, and use the threat of force to get food and supplies for their masses.
I don't see anything wrong with doing business with Russia. In fact, I think it should be encouraged. This is my reasoning - the more Russia depends on the US economically, the less likely Russia will want to go to war with us.
As far as hacking, etc., if that's the criteria, then Germany, France, Israel, and England would all be our enemy right now for tapping their phones and other stuff we haven't been made aware of yet. Influencing elections? We've done that recently too, in Israel, and the UK.
About the only country I wouldn't do business with right now is North Korea, and that's because they have nothing we want, and use the threat of force to get food and supplies for their masses.
I think you both make good points.
Yes, peoples should be able to make the alliances that they choose. And yes, we should stop forcing our will down the throats of so many people around he world.
I agree with that, too.
Apparently I'm in an agreeable mood today. I wonder how long that will last?
Maybe I should leave HROT alone today.
I double FIFY. Crimea should be allowed self-determination. A referendum vote was taken and Washington did not like the results. After the coup, Crimeans were trying to leave Kiev, as they were being violently slaughtered by the Obama backed western Ukraine, anti-Russian fascists. Zbigniew Brzezinski, a descendant of Polish nobility, whose family haled from Galicia, had their territory taken from them by the former Soviet Union. Eastern Ukraine, Donbass and Donetsk, voted over 90% for Yanukovych (a Russian ally). He stood in the way of Ukraine becoming a NATO member. Therefore, he was targeted for extinction by Washington. They want the Black Sea naval ports in Balaclava and Sevastopol. Washington is over there sticking their nose in their business. Not vice versa.
WWJD,
I've come at you before, fairly or unfairly, and I just want to say I commend you for your open mind. You are openly progressive (not always a bad thing), but, you will call your party out when clearly in the wrong. So, hat tip to you.
I've come at you before, fairly or unfairly, and I just want to say I commend you for your open mind. You are openly progressive (not always a bad thing), but, you will call your party out when clearly in the wrong. So, hat tip to you.
