Still not much on X or anywhere I have noticed from Reform or Farage. And nothing at all on the great Trumpian issue of the day. This is a very large non barking dog.
Farage trying to work out how he extracts himself without his crazy friends trying to take his leadership away….
His crazy friends might already be working on replacing Farage. Look at Musk's volte face on the $100 million. Elon now promotes Rupert Lowe MP and Twixer.
I think there has been a gradual build up of hatred, among a section of the US population, for the UK, Europe, Canada, and other allies.
What lies behind it?
I don't understand how the better people's lives materially seem to get, the less happy they are?
The human condition is truly weird.
I can have a go: - too much alienation from other humans and from natural processes (working the land, cooking, travel as a challenge) - too much inconsequential choice - too few contrasts (eg the seasons, getting through the winter on shrivelled apples and potatoes and then appreciating in-season fruit and veg later in the year etc) - awareness of the morally repugnant disparity between the way we live and the way the poorest on the planet live - etc
I'm not arguing to go back to any of this stuff as it comes with huge downsides, but our modern capitalist system is very alienating.
Relative peer pressure/envy - “why don’t I have a nice house like those on TV/glossy magazine? Why are my holidays to X instead of an ocean villa in Mauritius? why….”
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
II hate to continue this, but informal assurances are not treaties. They are not formal, and between individuals.
Both the countries and individuals involved were soon out of the picture. The idea that the assurances are somehow inherited by new governments is a little odd. That's why we write these things down and make them official.
Huh? of course assurances aren't treaties. what's your point?
If Scotland became independent, would all the understandings not in treaties that the UK has be immediately thrown in the bin?
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
That’s a very selective wording of a question.
I don't see what the problem is, but go ahead and put the question in a way you're happy with. It's just a matter of historical record.
Does Ukraine being interested in joining NATO and NATO being willing to consider the possibility constitute a legitimate casus belli for Russia to invade and annex territory?
that's a completely different, indeed unrelated (except for Putin and apologists), question.
It's the question that matters. It's the issue that hangs over the entire discussion.
ah ok, so it's ok to make shit up if you're on the right side of the 'entire discussion'? Is that what you are saying?
let's say that I am asking a question that really, really, really doesn't matter at all - how would you ask it, rather than changing it to a completely different question that does matter? as you objected to my wording.
I haven't said it's OK to make shit up.
We are in a context where Russia and her supporters are seeking to justify a war of aggression against Ukraine. They do this in various ways. One way they do this is to talk about NATO expansion. That's the only reason we're talking about this. Otherwise, it would be a niche discussion for historians alone.
In that context, your wording -- "It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward?" -- collapses a complex situation into a simple dichotomy. You demand a yes/ no answer. You explicitly exclude the non-binding nature of any comments and the different context. The result you get is a "yes". That "yes" then feeds into a Russian narrative as, without its context, it seems to legitimise that entire narrative.
A better question would allow for something more than yes/no. It would address the context and the nature of the promises made. For example: "How did NATO discuss possible expansion with the Soviet Union when the Iron Curtain fell; and how did the situation around NATO expansion change in the following years as the Soviet Union collapsed?" Or one could just directly ask, "How have narratives about NATO evolved in Russia and how have they been used to justify expansionism?"
Have you all become complete idiots? Someone posted a flat denial that any promise was ever made. That is false. Goodbye.
On topic - I want more Boris Johnson Trumpsplaining. I cannot get enough of him being totally humiliated.
Shame on you
He has come out clearly in favour of Ukraine. The fact that he is finagling his way out of a tricky situation is neither here nor there. We should be encouraging people to do the right thing, not pointing and laughing at the mental gymnastics required
That’s why people are reluctant to change their minds, and do the right thing. No one rejoices over the sinner who repents. Rather they jeer and mock at him.
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas don't crunch. Wrong word. Siesta every time.
Yes - easy answer. What sort of a maniac, when offered the choice between a banana or a little snooze, goes for the banana?
Fair enough. I like the absolute certainty
Bravo
Here’s another dilemma I’ve been wrestling with. Very human - and universal I think. But most people are too ashamed to admit it
I’m gonna tackle it head on
If you had to give up one of these which would it be
1. Seeing small mustelids in the wild
Or
2. Nodding vigorously
Which would ie be?
I love seeing small mustelids in the wild. Weasels. Stoats. Stoats! Also those other ones. Mink?
And yet I love nodding vigorously in agreement with a well made point. Yes yes you’re right! If Igave that up in favour of the odd glimpse of a pine marten I’d be reduced to polite nodding while saying “YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY BANG ON” so people would know I really agreed with them
And then everyone would stare
I enjoy using the word mustelid tremendousy, but I think I've only ever seen one in the wild. A mink in Wythenshawe. So it wouldn't be too hard a pleasure to forego. I'm keeping nodding vigorously.
Badgers are mustelids, aren't they? But I've only ever seen dead ones.
Badgers are indeed mustelids
But I specified SMALL mustelids so you can keep badgers
I get a massive thrill out of seeing mustelids in the wild. I’ve seen all of them in the UK I think - stoat, weasel, mink, polecat - only missing one is pine marten (very rare). A genuine thrill. And then all the weird ones abroad!
I’d be loathe to give that up so I reckon I’d give up “nodding vigorously”. I’d probably adopt a new technique of tilting my head slightly to the right and saying, in a slow voice, “so right”! That would actually be more impressive than nodding. Nodding is so fucking boring. Sort of thing @kinabalu does after golf
However what happens in a crowded place where people can’t hear my laconic “so right”. Well then I’d forewarn everyone. I’d just send out an email beforehand saying “I’m not allowed to nod vigorously so if I agree with you a lot I’ll stand up and hop around the room” which totally puts that problem to bed
On topic - I want more Boris Johnson Trumpsplaining. I cannot get enough of him being totally humiliated.
Shame on you
He has come out clearly in favour of Ukraine. The fact that he is finagling his way out of a tricky situation is neither here nor there. We should be encouraging people to do the right thing, not pointing and laughing at the mental gymnastics required
That’s why people are reluctant to change their minds, and do the right thing. No one rejoices over the sinner who repents. Rather they jeer and mock at him.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
II hate to continue this, but informal assurances are not treaties. They are not formal, and between individuals.
Both the countries and individuals involved were soon out of the picture. The idea that the assurances are somehow inherited by new governments is a little odd. That's why we write these things down and make them official.
Huh? of course assurances aren't treaties. what's your point?
If Scotland became independent, would all the understandings not in treaties that the UK has be immediately thrown in the bin?
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
That’s a very selective wording of a question.
I don't see what the problem is, but go ahead and put the question in a way you're happy with. It's just a matter of historical record.
Does Ukraine being interested in joining NATO and NATO being willing to consider the possibility constitute a legitimate casus belli for Russia to invade and annex territory?
that's a completely different, indeed unrelated (except for Putin and apologists), question.
It's the question that matters. It's the issue that hangs over the entire discussion.
ah ok, so it's ok to make shit up if you're on the right side of the 'entire discussion'? Is that what you are saying?
let's say that I am asking a question that really, really, really doesn't matter at all - how would you ask it, rather than changing it to a completely different question that does matter? as you objected to my wording.
I haven't said it's OK to make shit up.
We are in a context where Russia and her supporters are seeking to justify a war of aggression against Ukraine. They do this in various ways. One way they do this is to talk about NATO expansion. That's the only reason we're talking about this. Otherwise, it would be a niche discussion for historians alone.
In that context, your wording -- "It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward?" -- collapses a complex situation into a simple dichotomy. You demand a yes/ no answer. You explicitly exclude the non-binding nature of any comments and the different context. The result you get is a "yes". That "yes" then feeds into a Russian narrative as, without its context, it seems to legitimise that entire narrative.
A better question would allow for something more than yes/no. It would address the context and the nature of the promises made. For example: "How did NATO discuss possible expansion with the Soviet Union when the Iron Curtain fell; and how did the situation around NATO expansion change in the following years as the Soviet Union collapsed?" Or one could just directly ask, "How have narratives about NATO evolved in Russia and how have they been used to justify expansionism?"
Have you all become complete idiots? Someone posted a flat denial that any promise was ever made. That is false. Goodbye.
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas don't crunch. Wrong word. Siesta every time.
Yes - easy answer. What sort of a maniac, when offered the choice between a banana or a little snooze, goes for the banana?
Fair enough. I like the absolute certainty
Bravo
Here’s another dilemma I’ve been wrestling with. Very human - and universal I think. But most people are too ashamed to admit it
I’m gonna tackle it head on
If you had to give up one of these which would it be
1. Seeing small mustelids in the wild
Or
2. Nodding vigorously
Which would ie be?
I love seeing small mustelids in the wild. Weasels. Stoats. Stoats! Also those other ones. Mink?
And yet I love nodding vigorously in agreement with a well made point. Yes yes you’re right! If Igave that up in favour of the odd glimpse of a pine marten I’d be reduced to polite nodding while saying “YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY BANG ON” so people would know I really agreed with them
And then everyone would stare
I enjoy using the word mustelid tremendousy, but I think I've only ever seen one in the wild. A mink in Wythenshawe. So it wouldn't be too hard a pleasure to forego. I'm keeping nodding vigorously.
Badgers are mustelids, aren't they? But I've only ever seen dead ones.
Go for a run/cycle at dawn around any UK city with a bit of green space and you'll see badgers scurrying around. They are more timid than urban foxes.
Dawn is seriously underrated. Head out an hour before sunrise and you are just one animal among thousands. And then the clatter of humanity presents itself.
Beautiful hot women to taunt and tantalise us. But, oh, what a joy. What pleasure.
Who would be gay?
Idiots.
There are also some hot men on this planet. Beautiful hot men etc
Yeah, but no. Well, OK, if you want (more for the rest of us) but it's the hair, the smooth soft skin, the wonderful smell, the wonderful form, the empathy, the TLC, the beauty..
Did I mention the form?
Men are bony, hairy, hard, aspergy and misanthropic. Also a bit aggressive.
Forget gay, I honestly don't know why there aren't more lesbians.
On topic - I want more Boris Johnson Trumpsplaining. I cannot get enough of him being totally humiliated.
Shame on you
He has come out clearly in favour of Ukraine. The fact that he is finagling his way out of a tricky situation is neither here nor there. We should be encouraging people to do the right thing, not pointing and laughing at the mental gymnastics required
That’s why people are reluctant to change their minds, and do the right thing. No one rejoices over the sinner who repents. Rather they jeer and mock at him.
The problem is that, over Ukraine and Trump, Boris is still trying to have his cake and eat it.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
Unfortunately there number of hard rock covers bands playing at Center Parcs can be counted on the fingers of no hands.
It's not that it's impossible to have fun at a holiday park. Your experience demonstrates that. But your experience is because there's something fun there. Butlins, though it may not to be everybody's tastes, is fun. Sandy Balls in the New Forest isn't fun per se, but it's in quite a fun place. Center Parcs has had all the fun sucked out of it. If it were a breakfast it would be granola.
And while I agree judging people by their looks is a bit crass, there is a time and a place for a bit crass, in moderation, and an anonymous web forum is probably it. And it's also illustrative at the sort of mood that a Center Parcs puts you in.
Center Parcs always puts me in a fantastic mood. Don't know what you're talking about.
It's fun, and I'm actually having quite a decent time, but it's costing me thousands.
I don't know how they get away with it. But the place is always full, so they have their business model uber-tight.
We did center parcs once when my kids were young (20 years ago). It was in the Netherlands. I seem to recall we enjoyed it, so I am not sure why we didn't do it again. Our holiday of choice for many years with young children was Canvas or Eurocamp in France and then later organising it myself. Avoided the big touristy ones. Cheapish and really enjoyable.
PS Should add it isn't real camping. It's for softies. Beds, fridge, etc.
On topic - I want more Boris Johnson Trumpsplaining. I cannot get enough of him being totally humiliated.
Shame on you
He has come out clearly in favour of Ukraine. The fact that he is finagling his way out of a tricky situation is neither here nor there. We should be encouraging people to do the right thing, not pointing and laughing at the mental gymnastics required
That’s why people are reluctant to change their minds, and do the right thing. No one rejoices over the sinner who repents. Rather they jeer and mock at him.
The problem is that, over Ukraine and Trump, Boris is still trying to have his cake and eat it.
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas don't crunch. Wrong word. Siesta every time.
Yes - easy answer. What sort of a maniac, when offered the choice between a banana or a little snooze, goes for the banana?
Fair enough. I like the absolute certainty
Bravo
Here’s another dilemma I’ve been wrestling with. Very human - and universal I think. But most people are too ashamed to admit it
I’m gonna tackle it head on
If you had to give up one of these which would it be
1. Seeing small mustelids in the wild
Or
2. Nodding vigorously
Which would ie be?
I love seeing small mustelids in the wild. Weasels. Stoats. Stoats! Also those other ones. Mink?
And yet I love nodding vigorously in agreement with a well made point. Yes yes you’re right! If Igave that up in favour of the odd glimpse of a pine marten I’d be reduced to polite nodding while saying “YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY BANG ON” so people would know I really agreed with them
And then everyone would stare
I enjoy using the word mustelid tremendousy, but I think I've only ever seen one in the wild. A mink in Wythenshawe. So it wouldn't be too hard a pleasure to forego. I'm keeping nodding vigorously.
Badgers are mustelids, aren't they? But I've only ever seen dead ones.
Go for a run/cycle at dawn around any UK city with a bit of green space and you'll see badgers scurrying around. They are more timid than urban foxes.
Dawn is seriously underrated. Head out an hour before sunrise and you are just one animal among thousands. And then the clatter of humanity presents itself.
She is, but I was always more of a Jennifer Saunders fan myself.
I think there has been a gradual build up of hatred, among a section of the US population, for the UK, Europe, Canada, and other allies.
What lies behind it?
I don't understand how the better people's lives materially seem to get, the less happy they are?
The human condition is truly weird.
I can have a go: - too much alienation from other humans and from natural processes (working the land, cooking, travel as a challenge) - too much inconsequential choice - too few contrasts (eg the seasons, getting through the winter on shrivelled apples and potatoes and then appreciating in-season fruit and veg later in the year etc) - awareness of the morally repugnant disparity between the way we live and the way the poorest on the planet live - etc
I'm not arguing to go back to any of this stuff as it comes with huge downsides, but our modern capitalist system is very alienating.
Relative peer pressure/envy - “why don’t I have a nice house like those on TV/glossy magazine? Why are my holidays to X instead of an ocean villa in Mauritius? why….”
I understand it, but I don’t have it to that degree.
I remember once arguing this with @Topping. I was puzzled why anyone would wish to spend tens of millions, buying a row of houses in central London, and knocking them into one. Why would you care?
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
Unfortunately there number of hard rock covers bands playing at Center Parcs can be counted on the fingers of no hands.
It's not that it's impossible to have fun at a holiday park. Your experience demonstrates that. But your experience is because there's something fun there. Butlins, though it may not to be everybody's tastes, is fun. Sandy Balls in the New Forest isn't fun per se, but it's in quite a fun place. Center Parcs has had all the fun sucked out of it. If it were a breakfast it would be granola.
And while I agree judging people by their looks is a bit crass, there is a time and a place for a bit crass, in moderation, and an anonymous web forum is probably it. And it's also illustrative at the sort of mood that a Center Parcs puts you in.
Center Parcs always puts me in a fantastic mood. Don't know what you're talking about.
It's fun, and I'm actually having quite a decent time, but it's costing me thousands.
I don't know how they get away with it. But the place is always full, so they have their business model uber-tight.
We did center parcs once when my kids were young (20 years ago). It was in the Netherlands. I seem to recall we enjoyed it, so I am not sure why we didn't do it again. Our holiday of choice for many years with young children was Canvas or Eurocamp in France and then later organising it myself. Avoided the big touristy ones. Cheapish and really enjoyable.
Yeah, Eurocamp is a cracking shout when my youngest is a couple of years older.
Some of you may have noticed the improvement in de-aging in cinemas recently. This is because the tech has moved from "construct a virtual mesh and fit muscles, skin and hair over it" to "use machine learning*1 to predict each pixel". The former is very time consuming and takes longer and longer to make incremental changes, and has probably reached its limit now. The latter is increasingly important, requires less human intervention, can be (mostly) done in real time, and is superseding the former
This makes me recall the story of Phil Tippett, who was an expert in stop-motion animation and submitted a bid for Jurassic Park using stop-motion dinosaurs. While he was there he saw the other bids using computer animation. Afterwards he abandoned physical animation and moved to CGI, creating the bugs in Starship Troopers.
Perhaps we are a step closer to cleaning up bad cctv footage of ne'er-do-wells, and sharpening up early films and television programmes. Hollywood and the streamers might be working on it already.
Amongst other techniques, Peter Jackson used machine frame creation and machine sharpening when he was cleaning up the low FPS raw footage used in They Shall Not Grow Old.
It comes to a pretty pass when you're talking about otters, and I'm talking about women; the rest of pb is talking about the failings of humanity, and possibly our inevitable doom.
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas don't crunch. Wrong word. Siesta every time.
Yes - easy answer. What sort of a maniac, when offered the choice between a banana or a little snooze, goes for the banana?
Fair enough. I like the absolute certainty
Bravo
Here’s another dilemma I’ve been wrestling with. Very human - and universal I think. But most people are too ashamed to admit it
I’m gonna tackle it head on
If you had to give up one of these which would it be
1. Seeing small mustelids in the wild
Or
2. Nodding vigorously
Which would ie be?
I love seeing small mustelids in the wild. Weasels. Stoats. Stoats! Also those other ones. Mink?
And yet I love nodding vigorously in agreement with a well made point. Yes yes you’re right! If Igave that up in favour of the odd glimpse of a pine marten I’d be reduced to polite nodding while saying “YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY BANG ON” so people would know I really agreed with them
And then everyone would stare
I enjoy using the word mustelid tremendousy, but I think I've only ever seen one in the wild. A mink in Wythenshawe. So it wouldn't be too hard a pleasure to forego. I'm keeping nodding vigorously.
Badgers are mustelids, aren't they? But I've only ever seen dead ones.
Badgers are indeed mustelids
But I specified SMALL mustelids so you can keep badgers
I get a massive thrill out of seeing mustelids in the wild. I’ve seen all of them in the UK I think - stoat, weasel, mink, polecat - only missing one is pine marten (very rare). A genuine thrill. And then all the weird ones abroad!
I’d be loathe to give that up so I reckon I’d give up “nodding vigorously”. I’d probably adopt a new technique of tilting my head slightly to the right and saying, in a slow voice, “so right”! That would actually be more impressive than nodding. Nodding is so fucking boring. Sort of thing @kinabalu does after golf
However what happens in a crowded place where people can’t hear my laconic “so right”. Well then I’d forewarn everyone. I’d just send out an email beforehand saying “I’m not allowed to nod vigorously so if I agree with you a lot I’ll stand up and hop around the room” which totally puts that problem to bed
Pine Martens are pretty easy to spot. You need to spend more time in Scotland.
Beautiful hot women to taunt and tantalise us. But, oh, what a joy. What pleasure.
Who would be gay?
Idiots.
There are also some hot men on this planet. Beautiful hot men etc
Yeah, but no. Well, OK, if you want (more for the rest of us) but it's the hair, the smooth soft skin, the wonderful smell, the wonderful form, the empathy, the TLC, the beauty..
Did I mention the form?
Men are bony, hairy, hard, aspergy and misanthropic. Also a bit aggressive.
Forget gay, I honestly don't know why there aren't more lesbians.
On topic - I want more Boris Johnson Trumpsplaining. I cannot get enough of him being totally humiliated.
Shame on you
He has come out clearly in favour of Ukraine. The fact that he is finagling his way out of a tricky situation is neither here nor there. We should be encouraging people to do the right thing, not pointing and laughing at the mental gymnastics required
That’s why people are reluctant to change their minds, and do the right thing. No one rejoices over the sinner who repents. Rather they jeer and mock at him.
Possibly they do. But given Johnson is the sinner lashing out at everyone pointing out his hypocrisy and he has absolutely no intention of repenting, the rejoicing takes a different direction.
I think there has been a gradual build up of hatred, among a section of the US population, for the UK, Europe, Canada, and other allies.
What lies behind it?
I don't understand how the better people's lives materially seem to get, the less happy they are?
The human condition is truly weird.
People judge their lives by looking at others and the exposure to the fabulous lifestyles that some have now profoundly depresses those who cannot have the same. Quite a few on PB are very wealthy (six figures salaries) and some ostentatious travel.
By comparison with all of human history most people have never had it so good, but c.f. to what you see on social media?
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas don't crunch. Wrong word. Siesta every time.
Yes - easy answer. What sort of a maniac, when offered the choice between a banana or a little snooze, goes for the banana?
Fair enough. I like the absolute certainty
Bravo
Here’s another dilemma I’ve been wrestling with. Very human - and universal I think. But most people are too ashamed to admit it
I’m gonna tackle it head on
If you had to give up one of these which would it be
1. Seeing small mustelids in the wild
Or
2. Nodding vigorously
Which would ie be?
I love seeing small mustelids in the wild. Weasels. Stoats. Stoats! Also those other ones. Mink?
And yet I love nodding vigorously in agreement with a well made point. Yes yes you’re right! If Igave that up in favour of the odd glimpse of a pine marten I’d be reduced to polite nodding while saying “YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY BANG ON” so people would know I really agreed with them
And then everyone would stare
I enjoy using the word mustelid tremendousy, but I think I've only ever seen one in the wild. A mink in Wythenshawe. So it wouldn't be too hard a pleasure to forego. I'm keeping nodding vigorously.
Badgers are mustelids, aren't they? But I've only ever seen dead ones.
Go for a run/cycle at dawn around any UK city with a bit of green space and you'll see badgers scurrying around. They are more timid than urban foxes.
Dawn is seriously underrated. Head out an hour before sunrise and you are just one animal among thousands. And then the clatter of humanity presents itself.
I very much like the dawn. Though I hate getting up. When I was a student, especially in summer, I got a bit nocturnal. I'd write essays at night, then head out about dawn to go and type them up in the all-night computer rooms. I loved being out and about at dawn. No mustelids, but birds, quiet and fresh air and magical light. I'd then emerge from the computer rooms about 8am, and the world would be full of noise and petrol fumes.
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas don't crunch. Wrong word. Siesta every time.
Yes - easy answer. What sort of a maniac, when offered the choice between a banana or a little snooze, goes for the banana?
Fair enough. I like the absolute certainty
Bravo
Here’s another dilemma I’ve been wrestling with. Very human - and universal I think. But most people are too ashamed to admit it
I’m gonna tackle it head on
If you had to give up one of these which would it be
1. Seeing small mustelids in the wild
Or
2. Nodding vigorously
Which would ie be?
I love seeing small mustelids in the wild. Weasels. Stoats. Stoats! Also those other ones. Mink?
And yet I love nodding vigorously in agreement with a well made point. Yes yes you’re right! If Igave that up in favour of the odd glimpse of a pine marten I’d be reduced to polite nodding while saying “YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY BANG ON” so people would know I really agreed with them
And then everyone would stare
I enjoy using the word mustelid tremendousy, but I think I've only ever seen one in the wild. A mink in Wythenshawe. So it wouldn't be too hard a pleasure to forego. I'm keeping nodding vigorously.
Badgers are mustelids, aren't they? But I've only ever seen dead ones.
Go for a run/cycle at dawn around any UK city with a bit of green space and you'll see badgers scurrying around. They are more timid than urban foxes.
Dawn is seriously underrated. Head out an hour before sunrise and you are just one animal among thousands. And then the clatter of humanity presents itself.
Leave Dawn alone; you'll get Casino started again.
I think there has been a gradual build up of hatred, among a section of the US population, for the UK, Europe, Canada, and other allies.
What lies behind it?
I don't understand how the better people's lives materially seem to get, the less happy they are?
The human condition is truly weird.
People judge their lives by looking at others and the exposure to the fabulous lifestyles that some have now profoundly depresses those who cannot have the same. Quite a few on PB are very wealthy (six figures salaries) and some ostentatious travel.
By comparison with all of human history most people have never had it so good, but c.f. to what you see on social media?
I guess up to social media people could really only compare themselves to their neighbours / friends / family so the comparisons made sense.
Now they can compare themselves to fakes on social media who seem little better or even worse than themselves yet have a better lifestyle and that creates a significant issue.
Another part is that I suspect people only put good things on social media and hide the bad news / events from view
It comes to a pretty pass when you're talking about otters, and I'm talking about women; the rest of pb is talking about the failings of humanity, and possibly our inevitable doom.
Where else on the Interwebz would you get this?
Some idiot will swing by shortly and start on about political bets.
Beautiful hot women to taunt and tantalise us. But, oh, what a joy. What pleasure.
Who would be gay?
Idiots.
There are also some hot men on this planet. Beautiful hot men etc
Yeah, but no. Well, OK, if you want (more for the rest of us) but it's the hair, the smooth soft skin, the wonderful smell, the wonderful form, the empathy, the TLC, the beauty..
Did I mention the form?
Men are bony, hairy, hard, aspergy and misanthropic. Also a bit aggressive.
Forget gay, I honestly don't know why there aren't more lesbians.
Yeah. But when you're horny a bloke is much quicker to sort.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
Then tell the Trump Derangement Nappy Wearers to shut the fuck up. We’ve had 24 hours of them continuously shitting themselves in public and then flinging the poo at anyone who dares to disagree in the slightest - and my god they are boring
I mean, @bondegezou. How do you even get as boring and self righteous as that clueless prick?
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
II hate to continue this, but informal assurances are not treaties. They are not formal, and between individuals.
Both the countries and individuals involved were soon out of the picture. The idea that the assurances are somehow inherited by new governments is a little odd. That's why we write these things down and make them official.
Huh? of course assurances aren't treaties. what's your point?
If Scotland became independent, would all the understandings not in treaties that the UK has be immediately thrown in the bin?
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
That’s a very selective wording of a question.
I don't see what the problem is, but go ahead and put the question in a way you're happy with. It's just a matter of historical record.
Does Ukraine being interested in joining NATO and NATO being willing to consider the possibility constitute a legitimate casus belli for Russia to invade and annex territory?
that's a completely different, indeed unrelated (except for Putin and apologists), question.
It's the question that matters. It's the issue that hangs over the entire discussion.
ah ok, so it's ok to make shit up if you're on the right side of the 'entire discussion'? Is that what you are saying?
let's say that I am asking a question that really, really, really doesn't matter at all - how would you ask it, rather than changing it to a completely different question that does matter? as you objected to my wording.
I haven't said it's OK to make shit up.
We are in a context where Russia and her supporters are seeking to justify a war of aggression against Ukraine. They do this in various ways. One way they do this is to talk about NATO expansion. That's the only reason we're talking about this. Otherwise, it would be a niche discussion for historians alone.
In that context, your wording -- "It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward?" -- collapses a complex situation into a simple dichotomy. You demand a yes/ no answer. You explicitly exclude the non-binding nature of any comments and the different context. The result you get is a "yes". That "yes" then feeds into a Russian narrative as, without its context, it seems to legitimise that entire narrative.
A better question would allow for something more than yes/no. It would address the context and the nature of the promises made. For example: "How did NATO discuss possible expansion with the Soviet Union when the Iron Curtain fell; and how did the situation around NATO expansion change in the following years as the Soviet Union collapsed?" Or one could just directly ask, "How have narratives about NATO evolved in Russia and how have they been used to justify expansionism?"
Have you all become complete idiots? Someone posted a flat denial that any promise was ever made. That is false. Goodbye.
Hope not. You're a distinctive (in a good way) poster.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
If people want to flounce, then let them.
I just wish when they did they weren't to vain and self-centred as to make a song and dance about it. If you are going then just go.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
Unfortunately there number of hard rock covers bands playing at Center Parcs can be counted on the fingers of no hands.
It's not that it's impossible to have fun at a holiday park. Your experience demonstrates that. But your experience is because there's something fun there. Butlins, though it may not to be everybody's tastes, is fun. Sandy Balls in the New Forest isn't fun per se, but it's in quite a fun place. Center Parcs has had all the fun sucked out of it. If it were a breakfast it would be granola.
And while I agree judging people by their looks is a bit crass, there is a time and a place for a bit crass, in moderation, and an anonymous web forum is probably it. And it's also illustrative at the sort of mood that a Center Parcs puts you in.
Center Parcs always puts me in a fantastic mood. Don't know what you're talking about.
It's fun, and I'm actually having quite a decent time, but it's costing me thousands.
I don't know how they get away with it. But the place is always full, so they have their business model uber-tight.
We did center parcs once when my kids were young (20 years ago). It was in the Netherlands. I seem to recall we enjoyed it, so I am not sure why we didn't do it again. Our holiday of choice for many years with young children was Canvas or Eurocamp in France and then later organising it myself. Avoided the big touristy ones. Cheapish and really enjoyable.
Yeah, Eurocamp is a cracking shout when my youngest is a couple of years older.
When my kids were your kids' ages, or thereabouts, we did farm holidays in Cornwall. It was great, and relatively cheap, being not on the coast. There were about 15 self catering cottages - big enough so the kids could make friends, small enough so that they could go off relatively independently to the playground. There'd be a tour of the animals for feeding and collecting eggs each morning, and then we'd go off to the beach or some other tourist attraction in the afternoon. Did it for about three summers. Idyllic.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
Then tell the Trump Derangement Nappy Wearers to shut the fuck up. We’ve had 24 hours of them continuously shitting themselves in public and then flinging the poo at anyone who dares to disagree in the slightest - and my god they are boring
I mean, @bondegezou. How do you even get as boring and self righteous as that clueless prick?
Let them shut up for a week
Hells bells talk about pot and kettle. The irony meter just exploded.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
Then tell the Trump Derangement Nappy Wearers to shut the fuck up.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
If people want to flounce, then let them.
I just wish when they did they weren't to vain and self-centred as to make a song and dance about it. If you are going then just go.
No no no
Flouncing is one of the great PB arts. A really good flounce is a thing of unusual beauty
Even better is the genuinely permanent flounce - like a kind of white stag - impossibly rare but exquisite when witnessed, on the silent edge of the forest of reality
I myself have permanently flounced TWICE which is I think a record unlikely to be broken
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
If people want to flounce, then let them.
I just wish when they did they weren't to vain and self-centred as to make a song and dance about it. If you are going then just go.
No no no
Flouncing is one of the great PB arts. A really good flounce is a thing of rare beauty
Even better is the permanent flounce - like a kind of white stag - impossibly rare but exquisite when witnessed, on the silent edge of the forest of reality
I myself have permanently flounced TWICE which is I think a record unlikely to be broken
You kidding me right. MexicanPete flounced three times in one day as people were being nasty about Labour !!!! You have some way to go.
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas don't crunch. Wrong word. Siesta every time.
Yes - easy answer. What sort of a maniac, when offered the choice between a banana or a little snooze, goes for the banana?
Fair enough. I like the absolute certainty
Bravo
Here’s another dilemma I’ve been wrestling with. Very human - and universal I think. But most people are too ashamed to admit it
I’m gonna tackle it head on
If you had to give up one of these which would it be
1. Seeing small mustelids in the wild
Or
2. Nodding vigorously
Which would ie be?
I love seeing small mustelids in the wild. Weasels. Stoats. Stoats! Also those other ones. Mink?
And yet I love nodding vigorously in agreement with a well made point. Yes yes you’re right! If Igave that up in favour of the odd glimpse of a pine marten I’d be reduced to polite nodding while saying “YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY BANG ON” so people would know I really agreed with them
And then everyone would stare
I enjoy using the word mustelid tremendousy, but I think I've only ever seen one in the wild. A mink in Wythenshawe. So it wouldn't be too hard a pleasure to forego. I'm keeping nodding vigorously.
Badgers are mustelids, aren't they? But I've only ever seen dead ones.
Badgers are indeed mustelids
But I specified SMALL mustelids so you can keep badgers
I get a massive thrill out of seeing mustelids in the wild. I’ve seen all of them in the UK I think - stoat, weasel, mink, polecat - only missing one is pine marten (very rare). A genuine thrill. And then all the weird ones abroad!
I’d be loathe to give that up so I reckon I’d give up “nodding vigorously”. I’d probably adopt a new technique of tilting my head slightly to the right and saying, in a slow voice, “so right”! That would actually be more impressive than nodding. Nodding is so fucking boring. Sort of thing @kinabalu does after golf
However what happens in a crowded place where people can’t hear my laconic “so right”. Well then I’d forewarn everyone. I’d just send out an email beforehand saying “I’m not allowed to nod vigorously so if I agree with you a lot I’ll stand up and hop around the room” which totally puts that problem to bed
But what happens in the event you are meeting someone for the first time, perhaps with romance in mind, and it has got to the stage of your flirtatious conversation where you need to agree vigorously so as to make them feel you're on the same wavelength? However, you are in a crowded place (imagine horny Casino in the queue for the full body dryers at the sub-tropical paradise trying to think how to steer the conversation towards how much cheaper it would be if he and Phoebe shared the dryer rather than using it sequentially if this aids your mental picture).
Your email needs to have reached Phoebe in advance, which poses a challenge.
Luckily I think I have the solution: you could revive the sadly ignored viral letter. You are old enough to remember the one, surely. It has as it's header 'you must send this on to ten people in your address book or a mustelid will die' or somesuch.
You need only announce your newfangled workaround for nodding vigorously in said viral letter and hey presto!
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas don't crunch. Wrong word. Siesta every time.
Yes - easy answer. What sort of a maniac, when offered the choice between a banana or a little snooze, goes for the banana?
Fair enough. I like the absolute certainty
Bravo
Here’s another dilemma I’ve been wrestling with. Very human - and universal I think. But most people are too ashamed to admit it
I’m gonna tackle it head on
If you had to give up one of these which would it be
1. Seeing small mustelids in the wild
Or
2. Nodding vigorously
Which would ie be?
I love seeing small mustelids in the wild. Weasels. Stoats. Stoats! Also those other ones. Mink?
And yet I love nodding vigorously in agreement with a well made point. Yes yes you’re right! If Igave that up in favour of the odd glimpse of a pine marten I’d be reduced to polite nodding while saying “YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY BANG ON” so people would know I really agreed with them
And then everyone would stare
I enjoy using the word mustelid tremendousy, but I think I've only ever seen one in the wild. A mink in Wythenshawe. So it wouldn't be too hard a pleasure to forego. I'm keeping nodding vigorously.
Badgers are mustelids, aren't they? But I've only ever seen dead ones.
Go for a run/cycle at dawn around any UK city with a bit of green space and you'll see badgers scurrying around. They are more timid than urban foxes.
Dawn is seriously underrated. Head out an hour before sunrise and you are just one animal among thousands. And then the clatter of humanity presents itself.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
If people want to flounce, then let them.
I just wish when they did they weren't to vain and self-centred as to make a song and dance about it. If you are going then just go.
No no no
Flouncing is one of the great PB arts. A really good flounce is a thing of rare beauty
Even better is the permanent flounce - like a kind of white stag - impossibly rare but exquisite when witnessed, on the silent edge of the forest of reality
I myself have permanently flounced TWICE which is I think a record unlikely to be broken
You kidding me right. MexicanPete flounced three times in one day as people were being nasty about Labour !!!! You have some way to go.
No I’m talking about Permanent Flouncing. Stalking away from the site and never coming back, not even under a new name years later etc
That’s exceptionally rare. I believe I’m the only pb-er who has done it twice
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
If people want to flounce, then let them.
I just wish when they did they weren't to vain and self-centred as to make a song and dance about it. If you are going then just go.
No no no
Flouncing is one of the great PB arts. A really good flounce is a thing of rare beauty
Even better is the permanent flounce - like a kind of white stag - impossibly rare but exquisite when witnessed, on the silent edge of the forest of reality
I myself have permanently flounced TWICE which is I think a record unlikely to be broken
You kidding me right. MexicanPete flounced three times in one day as people were being nasty about Labour !!!! You have some way to go.
Mexican Pete has flounced? When? Was it a perma-flounce?
It’s also very much on topic - Trump, Ukraine, the wars to come
I can’t say this in a nice or unscary way so I’m just gonna say it. About half al hour ago I had a nice siesta. Waking up with that pleasantly rested wooziness from a perfectly timed mini-kip
Yet earlier I had a really nice banana. Just at that cusp of ripeness - super sweet but still with agreeble soft crunch
You see my problem. Which would I give up? It’s probably something we’ve all asked ourselves at some point - but been too afraid to admit it. Well I don’t care. Polite society be damned
If I had to give up either bananas or siestas which would it be?
I think, in the end, and I say this with real reluctance, it would be bananas. There are other fruits. But there’s only one restful afternoon doze-off
I know. Shoot me. But them’s the facts and if that gets me banned so be it
Bananas don't crunch. Wrong word. Siesta every time.
Yes - easy answer. What sort of a maniac, when offered the choice between a banana or a little snooze, goes for the banana?
Fair enough. I like the absolute certainty
Bravo
Here’s another dilemma I’ve been wrestling with. Very human - and universal I think. But most people are too ashamed to admit it
I’m gonna tackle it head on
If you had to give up one of these which would it be
1. Seeing small mustelids in the wild
Or
2. Nodding vigorously
Which would ie be?
I love seeing small mustelids in the wild. Weasels. Stoats. Stoats! Also those other ones. Mink?
And yet I love nodding vigorously in agreement with a well made point. Yes yes you’re right! If Igave that up in favour of the odd glimpse of a pine marten I’d be reduced to polite nodding while saying “YOU’RE ABSOLUTELY BANG ON” so people would know I really agreed with them
And then everyone would stare
I enjoy using the word mustelid tremendousy, but I think I've only ever seen one in the wild. A mink in Wythenshawe. So it wouldn't be too hard a pleasure to forego. I'm keeping nodding vigorously.
Badgers are mustelids, aren't they? But I've only ever seen dead ones.
Go for a run/cycle at dawn around any UK city with a bit of green space and you'll see badgers scurrying around. They are more timid than urban foxes.
Dawn is seriously underrated. Head out an hour before sunrise and you are just one animal among thousands. And then the clatter of humanity presents itself.
I'm of the feeling that we have seen peak Reform for the time being. Not sure they have that much more space to go.
Find Out Now @FindoutnowUK · 1h Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 28% (-1) 🔴 Labour: 24% (+1) 🔵 Conservatives: 20% (-1) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-) 🟢 Greens: 10% (+1) Changes from 12th February [Find Out Now, 19th February, N=2,393]
The more I look at these the more I suspect a proper Tory leader would have almost everything going for them right now. Gut Reform using Trump/Putin, steal some of their clothes and basically do Jim Hacker channeling Churchill. A lot of “we will take no lectures from our American cousins/friends criticise friends blah blah blah”.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
Then tell the Trump Derangement Nappy Wearers to shut the fuck up.
Check out your own kecks.
That’s probably inadvisable unless wearing a hazmat suit.
I’m genuinely baffled by @kamski today - normally an interesting and intelligent poster who seems to have got painted into an unnecessary corner.
What s/he has said is:
1) There are documents claiming informal assurances about NATO expansion were given to the USSR in existence. This is true. Nobody disputes this. Whether they are correct is a different question given they were written in a different time and context to push a particular policy goal.
2) That if such assurances were given are not part of any treaty. Also true. Nobody disputes that.
3) That the USSR and Russia are the same thing in diplomatic terms for treaties. Yes and no is the answer. Because Russia declared independence from the USSR its status as the successor state had to be negotiated over a period of two years, but it was so negotiated (with, ironically, a lot of arm twisting involved from the USA under Bush). But also, not relevant, as no such treaty was made about eastward expansion except for East Germany where the point is moot.
4) Then gets *very* agitated when several people want to discuss these points.
Genuinely surprised.
Anyway, just getting to Berwick and the sun’s out. Later.
I think there has been a gradual build up of hatred, among a section of the US population, for the UK, Europe, Canada, and other allies.
What lies behind it?
I don't understand how the better people's lives materially seem to get, the less happy they are?
The human condition is truly weird.
I can have a go: - too much alienation from other humans and from natural processes (working the land, cooking, travel as a challenge) - too much inconsequential choice - too few contrasts (eg the seasons, getting through the winter on shrivelled apples and potatoes and then appreciating in-season fruit and veg later in the year etc) - awareness of the morally repugnant disparity between the way we live and the way the poorest on the planet live - etc
I'm not arguing to go back to any of this stuff as it comes with huge downsides, but our modern capitalist system is very alienating.
Relative peer pressure/envy - “why don’t I have a nice house like those on TV/glossy magazine? Why are my holidays to X instead of an ocean villa in Mauritius? why….”
I understand it, but I don’t have it to that degree.
I remember once arguing this with @Topping. I was puzzled why anyone would wish to spend tens of millions, buying a row of houses in central London, and knocking them into one. Why would you care?
For many people, success is relative.
A new, slightly larger yacht at Monaco diminishes the happiness of everyone with a shorter… boat.
They feel this intensely.
See the number of people with mad, liar loans, so they can drive a 6 figure priced SUV on the salary of a junior estate agent.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
Unfortunately there number of hard rock covers bands playing at Center Parcs can be counted on the fingers of no hands.
It's not that it's impossible to have fun at a holiday park. Your experience demonstrates that. But your experience is because there's something fun there. Butlins, though it may not to be everybody's tastes, is fun. Sandy Balls in the New Forest isn't fun per se, but it's in quite a fun place. Center Parcs has had all the fun sucked out of it. If it were a breakfast it would be granola.
And while I agree judging people by their looks is a bit crass, there is a time and a place for a bit crass, in moderation, and an anonymous web forum is probably it. And it's also illustrative at the sort of mood that a Center Parcs puts you in.
Center Parcs always puts me in a fantastic mood. Don't know what you're talking about.
It's fun, and I'm actually having quite a decent time, but it's costing me thousands.
I don't know how they get away with it. But the place is always full, so they have their business model uber-tight.
We did center parcs once when my kids were young (20 years ago). It was in the Netherlands. I seem to recall we enjoyed it, so I am not sure why we didn't do it again. Our holiday of choice for many years with young children was Canvas or Eurocamp in France and then later organising it myself. Avoided the big touristy ones. Cheapish and really enjoyable.
Yeah, Eurocamp is a cracking shout when my youngest is a couple of years older.
When my kids were your kids' ages, or thereabouts, we did farm holidays in Cornwall. It was great, and relatively cheap, being not on the coast. There were about 15 self catering cottages - big enough so the kids could make friends, small enough so that they could go off relatively independently to the playground. There'd be a tour of the animals for feeding and collecting eggs each morning, and then we'd go off to the beach or some other tourist attraction in the afternoon. Did it for about three summers. Idyllic.
You need to try Center Parks Sherwood, possibly.
There's a 3300 acre forest park next door called Sherwood Pines (Forestry England), with all the usual facilities - including cycling circuits at the usual levels but a little easier, orienteering and the rest.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
Then tell the Trump Derangement Nappy Wearers to shut the fuck up.
...
Let them shut up for a week
Beware, or I shall put the free speech Nazis onto you.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
If people want to flounce, then let them.
I just wish when they did they weren't to vain and self-centred as to make a song and dance about it. If you are going then just go.
No no no
Flouncing is one of the great PB arts. A really good flounce is a thing of rare beauty
Even better is the permanent flounce - like a kind of white stag - impossibly rare but exquisite when witnessed, on the silent edge of the forest of reality
I myself have permanently flounced TWICE which is I think a record unlikely to be broken
You kidding me right. MexicanPete flounced three times in one day as people were being nasty about Labour !!!! You have some way to go.
Mexican Pete has flounced? When? Was it a perma-flounce?
Yes. He permanently flounced. It was unusual because after that the exact same person came back using the exact same name about three hours later - but @mexicanpete himself was never seen again
What made it especially notable in the Annals of Flouncing was that the same guy using the same name managed to be exactly as boring and forgettable as himself
Is it possible to ward off the collapse of your world view by talking about bananas?
IMO it isn't. However I'm open to dissent.
Bananas are genetically doomed and are another source of trade friction between Britain and America despite the fact neither of us grows the things. Banana republics have historically been on the receiving end of Uncle Sam's mailed fist but no-one talks about its treating Central and South America like the Russians treat theirs.
So bananas are not a good topic imo. Nor is Topic since Mars stopped making them.
I'm of the feeling that we have seen peak Reform for the time being. Not sure they have that much more space to go.
Find Out Now @FindoutnowUK · 1h Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 28% (-1) 🔴 Labour: 24% (+1) 🔵 Conservatives: 20% (-1) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-) 🟢 Greens: 10% (+1) Changes from 12th February [Find Out Now, 19th February, N=2,393]
The more I look at these the more I suspect a proper Tory leader would have almost everything going for them right now. Gut Reform using Trump/Putin, steal some of their clothes and basically do Jim Hacker channeling Churchill. A lot of “we will take no lectures from our American cousins/friends criticise friends blah blah blah”.
Ignoring the 14 year record of grift, chaos and penury, that is.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
If people want to flounce, then let them.
I just wish when they did they weren't to vain and self-centred as to make a song and dance about it. If you are going then just go.
No no no
Flouncing is one of the great PB arts. A really good flounce is a thing of unusual beauty
Even better is the genuinely permanent flounce - like a kind of white stag - impossibly rare but exquisite when witnessed, on the silent edge of the forest of reality
I myself have permanently flounced TWICE which is I think a record unlikely to be broken
Your flounces are rubbish.
The best ones are like a quadruple axle in the figure skating - the build up, the crowd on tenterhooks, the performance…
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
Then tell the Trump Derangement Nappy Wearers to shut the fuck up. We’ve had 24 hours of them continuously shitting themselves in public and then flinging the poo at anyone who dares to disagree in the slightest - and my god they are boring
I mean, @bondegezou. How do you even get as boring and self righteous as that clueless prick?
Let them shut up for a week
Hells bells talk about pot and kettle. The irony meter just exploded.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
Why should I keep it to myself?
You're a bloke. You'd do exactly the same; I'm just saying it out loud.
And I got a bit (a fair bit) of hair adjustment and eyelid fluttering from Phoebe which, whilst it might have been "training", put a bit of a spring in the step of this 42-year old.
Yeah I don't want to seem judgy, just for me personally it seems a bit Swiss Toni. Of course I spend about 99% of my time noting the existence of attractive women and I'm sure I could offer you a run for your money in the fawning embarrassingly over a pretty waitress stakes.
I think there has been a gradual build up of hatred, among a section of the US population, for the UK, Europe, Canada, and other allies.
What lies behind it?
I don't understand how the better people's lives materially seem to get, the less happy they are?
The human condition is truly weird.
I can have a go: - too much alienation from other humans and from natural processes (working the land, cooking, travel as a challenge) - too much inconsequential choice - too few contrasts (eg the seasons, getting through the winter on shrivelled apples and potatoes and then appreciating in-season fruit and veg later in the year etc) - awareness of the morally repugnant disparity between the way we live and the way the poorest on the planet live - etc
I'm not arguing to go back to any of this stuff as it comes with huge downsides, but our modern capitalist system is very alienating.
Relative peer pressure/envy - “why don’t I have a nice house like those on TV/glossy magazine? Why are my holidays to X instead of an ocean villa in Mauritius? why….”
I understand it, but I don’t have it to that degree.
I remember once arguing this with @Topping. I was puzzled why anyone would wish to spend tens of millions, buying a row of houses in central London, and knocking them into one. Why would you care?
For many people, success is relative.
A new, slightly larger yacht at Monaco diminishes the happiness of everyone with a shorter… boat.
They feel this intensely.
See the number of people with mad, liar loans, so they can drive a 6 figure priced SUV on the salary of a junior estate agent.
They mainly need to grow out of materialism / consumerism, and grow up imo.
One of my favourites quotes was from a friend on a not-generous income, doing what he wanted to do:
"I go window shopping to look at all the things I don't need to buy."
I think there has been a gradual build up of hatred, among a section of the US population, for the UK, Europe, Canada, and other allies.
What lies behind it?
I don't understand how the better people's lives materially seem to get, the less happy they are?
The human condition is truly weird.
I can have a go: - too much alienation from other humans and from natural processes (working the land, cooking, travel as a challenge) - too much inconsequential choice - too few contrasts (eg the seasons, getting through the winter on shrivelled apples and potatoes and then appreciating in-season fruit and veg later in the year etc) - awareness of the morally repugnant disparity between the way we live and the way the poorest on the planet live - etc
I'm not arguing to go back to any of this stuff as it comes with huge downsides, but our modern capitalist system is very alienating.
Relative peer pressure/envy - “why don’t I have a nice house like those on TV/glossy magazine? Why are my holidays to X instead of an ocean villa in Mauritius? why….”
I understand it, but I don’t have it to that degree.
I remember once arguing this with @Topping. I was puzzled why anyone would wish to spend tens of millions, buying a row of houses in central London, and knocking them into one. Why would you care?
For many people, success is relative.
A new, slightly larger yacht at Monaco diminishes the happiness of everyone with a shorter… boat.
They feel this intensely.
See the number of people with mad, liar loans, so they can drive a 6 figure priced SUV on the salary of a junior estate agent.
I'm with Sean here. I've never really seen why anyone would be bothered.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
Unfortunately there number of hard rock covers bands playing at Center Parcs can be counted on the fingers of no hands.
It's not that it's impossible to have fun at a holiday park. Your experience demonstrates that. But your experience is because there's something fun there. Butlins, though it may not to be everybody's tastes, is fun. Sandy Balls in the New Forest isn't fun per se, but it's in quite a fun place. Center Parcs has had all the fun sucked out of it. If it were a breakfast it would be granola.
And while I agree judging people by their looks is a bit crass, there is a time and a place for a bit crass, in moderation, and an anonymous web forum is probably it. And it's also illustrative at the sort of mood that a Center Parcs puts you in.
Center Parcs always puts me in a fantastic mood. Don't know what you're talking about.
It's fun, and I'm actually having quite a decent time, but it's costing me thousands.
I don't know how they get away with it. But the place is always full, so they have their business model uber-tight.
We did center parcs once when my kids were young (20 years ago). It was in the Netherlands. I seem to recall we enjoyed it, so I am not sure why we didn't do it again. Our holiday of choice for many years with young children was Canvas or Eurocamp in France and then later organising it myself. Avoided the big touristy ones. Cheapish and really enjoyable.
Yeah, Eurocamp is a cracking shout when my youngest is a couple of years older.
When my kids were your kids' ages, or thereabouts, we did farm holidays in Cornwall. It was great, and relatively cheap, being not on the coast. There were about 15 self catering cottages - big enough so the kids could make friends, small enough so that they could go off relatively independently to the playground. There'd be a tour of the animals for feeding and collecting eggs each morning, and then we'd go off to the beach or some other tourist attraction in the afternoon. Did it for about three summers. Idyllic.
You need to try Center Parks Sherwood, possibly.
There's a 3300 acre forest park next door called Sherwood Pines, with all the usual facilities - including cycling tracks, orienteering and the rest.
This is where we came in! (dig your way through the nested quotes). Nothing wrong with Sherwood Pines (though, as I said, Nottinghamshire doesn't really feel holiday-y) - except that when you're in Centerparcs in the UK it's frsutratingly difficult to leave the site. So in practice you don't end up taking advantage of the genuine tourist opportunities around it. But if I were to go back to Centerparcs in Sherwood, I would try my best to persuade my family to leave as often as possible.
The Times today: "As the Lords economic affairs committee wrote to Liz Kendall last month, the £65 billion incapacity and disability benefits bill is now 20 per cent higher than Britain’s entire defence budget – and is due to reach £100 billion by 2029-30."
This is mad.
Plausible. The Boomers (born between 1945 and Dec 1964) are now all in their 60s, with the oldest being 80. There's a lot of them and between 2030-35 they'll be between 65 and 90, or "peak old people". Keeping them in a decent state as they slip into the dark will be very expensive. I don't know how to fix this.
But this is the incapacity and disability benefits bill, so not the retired? (or not just the retired)
Would love to know how much of it is going on housing benefit as I suspect that going to be a very hefty chunk
Local Housing Allowance (which is the one that used to be called HB) is about £15.612bn, which is about half of what it was at peak. I'm not sure on the Social Sector / PRS split at present.
Whatever it is, it's a hefty fee to essentially reallocate existing housing resource. And no, the housing stock used for housing benefit is not the same stuff investors hold simply for capital appreciation. W/o HB landlords and tenants would still be willing buyers & sellers of rent.
I think there has been a gradual build up of hatred, among a section of the US population, for the UK, Europe, Canada, and other allies.
What lies behind it?
I don't understand how the better people's lives materially seem to get, the less happy they are?
The human condition is truly weird.
I can have a go: - too much alienation from other humans and from natural processes (working the land, cooking, travel as a challenge) - too much inconsequential choice - too few contrasts (eg the seasons, getting through the winter on shrivelled apples and potatoes and then appreciating in-season fruit and veg later in the year etc) - awareness of the morally repugnant disparity between the way we live and the way the poorest on the planet live - etc
I'm not arguing to go back to any of this stuff as it comes with huge downsides, but our modern capitalist system is very alienating.
Relative peer pressure/envy - “why don’t I have a nice house like those on TV/glossy magazine? Why are my holidays to X instead of an ocean villa in Mauritius? why….”
I understand it, but I don’t have it to that degree.
I remember once arguing this with @Topping. I was puzzled why anyone would wish to spend tens of millions, buying a row of houses in central London, and knocking them into one. Why would you care?
For many people, success is relative.
A new, slightly larger yacht at Monaco diminishes the happiness of everyone with a shorter… boat.
They feel this intensely.
See the number of people with mad, liar loans, so they can drive a 6 figure priced SUV on the salary of a junior estate agent.
They mainly need to grow out of materialism / consumerism, imo.
I recall one academic who, after a rant about the horrors of consumerism, had a rant about how someone in his dept. had more research students, producing more papers.
It takes many forms, and it is part of human nature, really.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
If people want to flounce, then let them.
I just wish when they did they weren't to vain and self-centred as to make a song and dance about it. If you are going then just go.
No no no
Flouncing is one of the great PB arts. A really good flounce is a thing of unusual beauty
Even better is the genuinely permanent flounce - like a kind of white stag - impossibly rare but exquisite when witnessed, on the silent edge of the forest of reality
I myself have permanently flounced TWICE which is I think a record unlikely to be broken
Your flounces are rubbish.
The best ones are like a quadruple axle in the figure skating - the build up, the crowd on tenterhooks, the performance…
Fie on you
What you don’t realise is that I often flounce without telling people then I come back 3 minutes later. Only a Flouncemaster General can do that
Indeed I remember once I flounced during the typing of a single word, yet then carried on typing the word less than half a second later. That kind of flouncing is elite stuff but is frankly wasted on most
I'm of the feeling that we have seen peak Reform for the time being. Not sure they have that much more space to go.
Find Out Now @FindoutnowUK · 1h Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 28% (-1) 🔴 Labour: 24% (+1) 🔵 Conservatives: 20% (-1) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-) 🟢 Greens: 10% (+1) Changes from 12th February [Find Out Now, 19th February, N=2,393]
The more I look at these the more I suspect a proper Tory leader would have almost everything going for them right now. Gut Reform using Trump/Putin, steal some of their clothes and basically do Jim Hacker channeling Churchill. A lot of “we will take no lectures from our American cousins/friends criticise friends blah blah blah”.
Ignoring the 14 year record of grift, chaos and penury, that is.
I reckon the right gobshite could repudiate the last few years and conjure up rose tinted memories of a more stable world under Cameron. Or even the moment just before Covid hit.
Milliband had got some life out of the Labour brand by 2016; and Starmer did pure necromancy to revive the Labour corpse in 2021/2.
I think there has been a gradual build up of hatred, among a section of the US population, for the UK, Europe, Canada, and other allies.
What lies behind it?
I don't understand how the better people's lives materially seem to get, the less happy they are?
The human condition is truly weird.
I can have a go: - too much alienation from other humans and from natural processes (working the land, cooking, travel as a challenge) - too much inconsequential choice - too few contrasts (eg the seasons, getting through the winter on shrivelled apples and potatoes and then appreciating in-season fruit and veg later in the year etc) - awareness of the morally repugnant disparity between the way we live and the way the poorest on the planet live - etc
I'm not arguing to go back to any of this stuff as it comes with huge downsides, but our modern capitalist system is very alienating.
Relative peer pressure/envy - “why don’t I have a nice house like those on TV/glossy magazine? Why are my holidays to X instead of an ocean villa in Mauritius? why….”
I understand it, but I don’t have it to that degree.
I remember once arguing this with @Topping. I was puzzled why anyone would wish to spend tens of millions, buying a row of houses in central London, and knocking them into one. Why would you care?
For many people, success is relative.
A new, slightly larger yacht at Monaco diminishes the happiness of everyone with a shorter… boat.
They feel this intensely.
See the number of people with mad, liar loans, so they can drive a 6 figure priced SUV on the salary of a junior estate agent.
I'm with Sean here. I've never really seen why anyone would be bothered.
You are not addicted to relative consumerism, then.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
Then tell the Trump Derangement Nappy Wearers to shut the fuck up.
...
Let them shut up for a week
Beware, or I shall put the free speech Nazis onto you.
You're back .
(Unless I have inverted my parties and wrongly identified the protagonist - whatever you do it's impossible to leave PB as many times as Stephen Fry flounced off twitter.)
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
Then tell the Trump Derangement Nappy Wearers to shut the fuck up.
Check out your own kecks.
That’s probably inadvisable unless wearing a hazmat suit.
I’m genuinely baffled by @kamski today - normally an interesting and intelligent poster who seems to have got painted into an unnecessary corner.
What s/he has said is:
1) There are documents claiming informal assurances about NATO expansion were given to the USSR in existence. This is true. Nobody disputes this. Whether they are correct is a different question given they were written in a different time and context to push a particular policy goal.
2) That if such assurances were given are not part of any treaty. Also true. Nobody disputes that.
3) That the USSR and Russia are the same thing in diplomatic terms for treaties. Yes and no is the answer. Because Russia declared independence from the USSR its status as the successor state had to be negotiated over a period of two years, but it was so negotiated (with, ironically, a lot of arm twisting involved from the USA under Bush). But also, not relevant, as no such treaty was made about eastward expansion except for East Germany where the point is moot.
4) Then gets *very* agitated when several people want to discuss these points.
Genuinely surprised.
Anyway, just getting to Berwick and the sun’s out. Later.
The cross purposes arise from looking at the NATO assurances as an enduring commitment (they weren't), and as a source of enduring resentment on Putin's part (they certainly are). The refusal to allow both things to be true while arguing the toss is where it all kicked off.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
If people want to flounce, then let them.
I just wish when they did they weren't to vain and self-centred as to make a song and dance about it. If you are going then just go.
No no no
Flouncing is one of the great PB arts. A really good flounce is a thing of unusual beauty
Even better is the genuinely permanent flounce - like a kind of white stag - impossibly rare but exquisite when witnessed, on the silent edge of the forest of reality
I myself have permanently flounced TWICE which is I think a record unlikely to be broken
Your flounces are rubbish.
The best ones are like a quadruple axle in the figure skating - the build up, the crowd on tenterhooks, the performance…
Fie on you
What you don’t realise is that I often flounce without telling people then I come back 3 minutes later. Only a Flouncemaster General can do that
Indeed I remember once I flounced during the typing of a single word, yet then carried on typing the word less than half a second later. That kind of flouncing is elite stuff but is frankly wasted on most
Balls
A PB Flounce only happens if it is observed. Your basic Quantum Mechanics stuff.
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
If people want to flounce, then let them.
I just wish when they did they weren't to vain and self-centred as to make a song and dance about it. If you are going then just go.
No no no
Flouncing is one of the great PB arts. A really good flounce is a thing of unusual beauty
Even better is the genuinely permanent flounce - like a kind of white stag - impossibly rare but exquisite when witnessed, on the silent edge of the forest of reality
I myself have permanently flounced TWICE which is I think a record unlikely to be broken
Your flounces are rubbish.
The best ones are like a quadruple axle in the figure skating - the build up, the crowd on tenterhooks, the performance…
Fie on you
What you don’t realise is that I often flounce without telling people then I come back 3 minutes later. Only a Flouncemaster General can do that
Indeed I remember once I flounced during the typing of a single word, yet then carried on typing the word less than half a second later. That kind of flouncing is elite stuff but is frankly wasted on most
Is each missing full stop one of these micro-flounces?
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
If people want to flounce, then let them.
I just wish when they did they weren't to vain and self-centred as to make a song and dance about it. If you are going then just go.
No no no
Flouncing is one of the great PB arts. A really good flounce is a thing of unusual beauty
Even better is the genuinely permanent flounce - like a kind of white stag - impossibly rare but exquisite when witnessed, on the silent edge of the forest of reality
I myself have permanently flounced TWICE which is I think a record unlikely to be broken
Your flounces are rubbish.
The best ones are like a quadruple axle in the figure skating - the build up, the crowd on tenterhooks, the performance…
Fie on you
What you don’t realise is that I often flounce without telling people then I come back 3 minutes later. Only a Flouncemaster General can do that
Indeed I remember once I flounced during the typing of a single word, yet then carried on typing the word less than half a second later. That kind of flouncing is elite stuff but is frankly wasted on most
Is each missing full stop one of these micro-flounces?
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
Actually so what?
I might have a tiniest investment in this if Russia had kept in the slightest to its side of the bargain, by not for example violently invading neighbouring countries, who don't all border NATO.
NATO is dead so it's all moot, but even for the record ...
I was merely correcting the false statement that there was no promise ever given not to expand NATO eastwards.
Normally pointless pedantry (if that's what it is) is appreciated on pb.com but in this case I'm accused of being a Kremlin propagandist. I didn't bring the subject up.
I've posted a link to the actual historical record which speaks for itself, so if interested you can read it. If not then don't.
Actually you posted a link to an article by an academic supporting your case. Not the “historical record”.
On the other hand, I posted a link to Chatham House, a respected neutral expert institute, debunking your claim as a myth
But you’ve not responded to or engaged with the Chatham House view, simply reiterating your own position. I wonder why?
You can read the actual documents there.
Chatham House says "the USSR was never offered a formal guarantee on the limits of NATO expansion post-1990" which is exactly what I have also said.
Frankly I find the responses to me posting a factual statement backed up with documentary evidence are fucking nuts and I'm not going to waste any more time on this forum you have mostly gone crazy.
Can we please stop with the flouncing?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
Then tell the Trump Derangement Nappy Wearers to shut the fuck up.
...
Let them shut up for a week
Beware, or I shall put the free speech Nazis onto you.
You're back .
(Unless I have inverted my parties and wrongly identified the protagonist - whatever you do it's impossible to leave PB as many times as Stephen Fry flounced off twitter.)
You are indeed inverting the parties. I fear flouncing is not amongst my talents, I struggle to muster the requisite outrage.
A few more observations on Centre Parcs: the staff are far more attractive than the customers.
All the middle-class career mums (who can afford the prices for half-term and have kids like Toby and Annabelle) are, quite frankly, Plain Jane - the sort that'd make Tilda Swinton look hot. I'd say largely 4s and 5s.. and, sadly, some 3s. My wife is easily the best looking.
The younger 20-somethings running the sports Plaza activities - the Phoebes, the Emmas etc - are all driving in from Westbury, Warminster and Frome, but are comfortably 8s and 9s. Fit, friendly, generous and good-spirited. And they remember your name.
Anyone, at least hardly any (staff or customers) are obese, though. And I've only seen a handful of dogs, all on leads, which is something of a relief.
Ooh, a Center Parcs pile-on - can I join in?
To come back on your specific point: yes, it's not a place for the beautiful - but to be fair, spend some time in the pool at Center Parcs and compare it to spending some time in the Sandcastle at Blackpool, and Center Parcs feels like Hollywood.
That aside: 1) Nottinghamshire is not a holiday destination. Nor is Bedfordshire. I cannot get excited about going to these places for a few days. Cumbria is a holiday destination, but arguably this is worse because you are in the most beautiful corner of England and can't actually get out and see any of it because you're in what feels like a prison camp and it's dreadfully difficult to leave. 2) On that subject however, the last time we went to the one in Nottinghamshire, I had a very nice time when we went for a walk when we stopped in Sherwood Forest on the way there. And the best activity I did when I was there was when I took the hire bike out of the site for a bike ride around Nottinghamshire. It was grey and overcast and there was a heavy wind and the coalfield scenery was a tad bleak - but I was free. Leaving the site I half expected massive inflatable white balls to come chasing after me. 3) It's stupidly expensive for what it is. As a family of five, at Easter, we're flying to Dubrovnik and have four nights half board in a hotel for the same cost as four nights at Center Parcs. It's the cost that's the real kicker. I mean, as a few days away, it's ok - but the opportunity cost is huge. There is so much more and better you could be doing for the same money. That's what makes an experience there properly miserable. 4) What sort of maniac know three weeks in advance what they want to be doing for every hour of their holiday? But you have to plan it out, because otherwise everything is booked up. There's always the sub-topical swimming paradise, of course. But there's a limit to how many times you can enjoyably do that on your holiday. 5) And again, the cost of the activities. I quite like a game of badminton. But I can get badminton at the local leisure centre. My holiday has turned into a really expensive version of hanging around my local leisure centre. I quite like those clambering-through-the-trees activities. But if you want to do that, there is a Go Ape only ten minutes drive from the site which you can do it for half the cost. The piss is being taken. And nothing which is ripping you off can ever be truly enjoyable. ...[cont]
...[cont]... 6) Forests are nice. But they're nice because they're natural. Center parcs woodland contrives to feel totally artificial. 7) I quite like a mid-price chain restaurant. But I can get that in the Trafford Centre. When I'm on holiday I want something which makes me feel like I'm somewhere different. 8) Cycling. I like cycling. But this is an ersatz version of cycling where you don't really go anywhere. And again, it's stupidly expensive to hire bikes and the layout is such that you can't really not hire bikes. 9) The spelling. 10) I went to a Center Parcs in Belgium last year. I had my reservations. But it turned out to be brilliant. It was everything a UK Center Parcs should be. It was far cheaper, rather smaller and basically a base for exploring the surrounding area. You parked at the front car park, but they expected you to come and go. There was badminton etc, but it was pretty much always available and not ridiculously expensive. There was a big swimming pool - not quite as big as the UK ones - but essentially it was something to do while you were on site rather than expected to be the focus of your holiday.
All that said, the last time I went to Centerparcs I had a very nice time despite all that. It was a big family meet-up - 33 of us - and only happened because everyone was able to opt into it individually; if we'd started by trying to find a time and place for all 33 of us to go away, it would never have worked. So it at least has that going for it.
I've never been to Centerparcs and it doesn't appeal. Quite apart from the fact that both "center" and "parcs" are misspelled, they seem very expensive for what is essentially a middle class Butlins without the seaside. Casino's lady ratings aside (any thoughts about others' appearance should be kept to oneself imho) his description of the experience does have a rather beak quality. Having said that, I did once attend a hard rock cover bands festival with my brother and his partner, at a stationary caravan park in Great Yarmouth, and that was a lot of fun.
Unfortunately there number of hard rock covers bands playing at Center Parcs can be counted on the fingers of no hands.
It's not that it's impossible to have fun at a holiday park. Your experience demonstrates that. But your experience is because there's something fun there. Butlins, though it may not to be everybody's tastes, is fun. Sandy Balls in the New Forest isn't fun per se, but it's in quite a fun place. Center Parcs has had all the fun sucked out of it. If it were a breakfast it would be granola.
And while I agree judging people by their looks is a bit crass, there is a time and a place for a bit crass, in moderation, and an anonymous web forum is probably it. And it's also illustrative at the sort of mood that a Center Parcs puts you in.
Center Parcs always puts me in a fantastic mood. Don't know what you're talking about.
It's fun, and I'm actually having quite a decent time, but it's costing me thousands.
I don't know how they get away with it. But the place is always full, so they have their business model uber-tight.
We did center parcs once when my kids were young (20 years ago). It was in the Netherlands. I seem to recall we enjoyed it, so I am not sure why we didn't do it again. Our holiday of choice for many years with young children was Canvas or Eurocamp in France and then later organising it myself. Avoided the big touristy ones. Cheapish and really enjoyable.
Yeah, Eurocamp is a cracking shout when my youngest is a couple of years older.
When my kids were your kids' ages, or thereabouts, we did farm holidays in Cornwall. It was great, and relatively cheap, being not on the coast. There were about 15 self catering cottages - big enough so the kids could make friends, small enough so that they could go off relatively independently to the playground. There'd be a tour of the animals for feeding and collecting eggs each morning, and then we'd go off to the beach or some other tourist attraction in the afternoon. Did it for about three summers. Idyllic.
You need to try Center Parks Sherwood, possibly.
There's a 3300 acre forest park next door called Sherwood Pines, with all the usual facilities - including cycling tracks, orienteering and the rest.
This is where we came in! (dig your way through the nested quotes). Nothing wrong with Sherwood Pines (though, as I said, Nottinghamshire doesn't really feel holiday-y) - except that when you're in Centerparcs in the UK it's frsutratingly difficult to leave the site. So in practice you don't end up taking advantage of the genuine tourist opportunities around it. But if I were to go back to Centerparcs in Sherwood, I would try my best to persuade my family to leave as often as possible.
For cycling and wheeling, the National Trust are beginning to get a bit serious about improving things.
One of *their* challenges is maintaining the integrity of their pay-boundary whilst encouraging through routes, and that they have been totally geared towards motor vehicles since about 1930 (my estimate) for their significant properties, and especially since the 1950s.
I think there is probably something in the posh end of Youth Hostels, now they lean more towards separate rooms.
I'm of the feeling that we have seen peak Reform for the time being. Not sure they have that much more space to go.
Find Out Now @FindoutnowUK · 1h Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 28% (-1) 🔴 Labour: 24% (+1) 🔵 Conservatives: 20% (-1) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-) 🟢 Greens: 10% (+1) Changes from 12th February [Find Out Now, 19th February, N=2,393]
The more I look at these the more I suspect a proper Tory leader would have almost everything going for them right now. Gut Reform using Trump/Putin, steal some of their clothes and basically do Jim Hacker channeling Churchill. A lot of “we will take no lectures from our American cousins/friends criticise friends blah blah blah”.
@KemiBadenoch President Zelenskyy is not a dictator. He is the democratically elected leader of Ukraine who bravely stood up to Putin’s illegal invasion. Under my leadership, and under successive Conservative Prime Ministers, we have and always will stand with Ukraine.
President Trump is right that Europe needs to pull its weight - and that includes the UK. We need to get serious. The PM will have my support to increase defence spending - there is a fully funded plan to get to 2.5% sitting on his desk. That should be the bare minimum. Starmer should get on with it, get on a plane to Washington and show some leadership. We cannot afford to get this wrong.
That's something.
Good to see Kemi confirming conservatives support for Ukraine in view of Trumps incendiary comments this pm , and seeking increased defence spending
She has given unconditional backing to increased defence spending. Politically, that could turn out to matter a lot. Could the Tories now vote against a tax rise to fund it, for example?
The problem with any tax rise is it is rare to be hypotecated and of course there are many different taxes, but we are approaching the time to address the tax and ni unfairness on the workers and increase taxes for those on unearned incomes
But then, everyone is happy for tax rises as long as it is not them
I have just noticed to add to the problems gilts seem to be rising
Gilts are rising across Europe in anticipation of defence bonds. They do look like the best option as things stand. If we are serious about our defence, if we really do believe in the Blitz spirit stuff, we are all going to have accept a hit. Our grandparents sacrificed a hell of a lot more than it will cost us.
I still don't understand this. What's the point in increase defence spending when there is no appetite to ever use it? We've had Salisbury, Ukraine, MH17, cables in the Baltic and we've done nothing at all.
I think this sudden interest in increasing spending is a displacement activity, designed to make people feel good while having zero effect on Russia (but costing us billions).
The reaspn is twofold. Firstly we will have to use it to some extent. If the US is abandoning Ukraine then we will have to provide either a peacekeeping force, weapons to Ukraine, and/or beef up defences on its borders should a pro-Russian regime be installed. Plus in doing that maintain our current forces if not increase them elsewhere. Quite possibly without American troops currently stationed in Eastern Europe. For example one reason Poland is reluctant to provide boots on the ground in Ukraine is it has its own border defences with Russia and Belarus and the Polish corridor to think about.
Secondly, it's about deterrence and vital defensive capabilities. The bulk of our new spending would likely be on air defence systems that can replace what the US did effectively provide as a guarantor. In general our defence is also currently integrated with the US and can't function fully without American help. That's how it's been designed as in theory it worked well for both as a way of extending American combat power while reducing the cost to us. So just to stand still and maintain our capabilities we had when NATO functioned fully we'll have to spend more. And more still if we believe the threat from Russia has increased.
Also why a peace deal favouring Russia is very much not on our interest. The potential costs far outweigh any short term benefits.
Thanks all for your answers. I remain of the view that European military spending is probably sufficient at the moment, taking into account our technological advantage, the fact Ukraine has managed to f*ck the Russians up big time, and our unwillingness to ever do an Erdogan.
I'd support a highly targeted reform of our defence spending, particularly around drones, stocks of ammo and cables, and the associated expense of that, if we accompany it with a new pro-active doctrine. That might mean sinking dodgy ships in the Baltic, RAF sorties over Ukraine, and a rotated garrison in Kyiv.
I am not sold on an arbitrary increase to 3/4% without an explanation of what it's actually for.
My guess is:
(1) British Army - we need to sustain a warfighting division in the field in the medium-long term. That's 10,000+ troops with rotations every 6 months, fully equipped and armed with artillery, tanks, light vehicles, ammo and engineers/logistics. Probably requires army back up at 110,000 men given we struggled with Telic/Herrick with just 100k. (2) Royal Navy - woefully short of escorts and men. Probably 10 x destroyers, 2 x cruisers and 16-18 frigates needed. 12 x attack subs. Full nuclear deterrent for Dreadnought of 4 x bomber subs. High availability. Fully fuelled. RFA to match. Royal Marines and landing ships on top. (3) RAF - complete Tempest/get all necessary F35 squadrons, upgrade maritime patrol aircraft, ensure hypersonic missile defences. Several addition squadrons. Chinook/Wessex helicopter fleet upgrades. Lots more cruise missiles and tactical missiles. Maybe some tactical nuclear warheads on top.
Then you need electronic warfare and cyber/hybrid warfare defences, proper funding of the security services, and special forces on top.
All of that would make us very credible in defence. But you couldn't do it all with 2.5%.
Worthless analysis.
There's no more capacity to build more ships in the UK.
Wessex went out of service in 2003.
Tempest won't be anything until 2040 (if ever) so if the need is as pressing as the Russophobe neurotics would have us believe then that has to go in the bin for more Typhoon.
If the government really wants to upgrade defence capability, it needs to start with a consideration of the people (not "men"). Work out what levels it can get to in each specialty at various levels of expenditure. Eg extra 5bn/year gets you another 20 FJ pilots, 100 sonar techs, etc. Then buy the amount of hardware commensurate to match the people. Starting with the hardware and working back is facile.
The only worthless analysis is your own.
Mine is spot on. I literally started with a consideration of the manpower (I will keep using this term, as will almost everyone else, as we don't share your passo-wokery) for the army to deploy a warfighting division. The ships are the level for a credible bluewater navy that can defend our interests worldwide, calibrated against the 1998SDR, and updated for today's world, and the same for the RAF. It's absolutely the right analysis and absolutely what we need, and rightly so.
You just don't like anybody else talking about defence but you. Same with cars, bikes and aircraft.
You are a very boring man. As well as a wrong one.
This is an interesting discussion. Personally I am actively against having a big standing army. I want defensive and offensive missile capability, then next priority naval capability. These are the most applicable to the genuine threats we face. By the time any invasion force gets past those, we'll all be in the army anyway. The only use for an army is being plopped somewhere in a foreign field to kill brown people, with dubious (to say the least) outcomes for national security. If we need to intervene in foreign conflicts, let's do naval stuff, ensuring supply lines remain open, blockades etc.. We used to send a gunship when there was a foreign policy issue - let's get back to that.
Bingo. I keep telling people I know that there’s no grand plan here, or to anything he does. He’s not playing 4D chess. He’s a fascistic sociopath that seeks adoration and applause for everything he does, and he wants to be the focus of EVERYTHING.
Correct. He’s not capable of playing multidimensional chess. Or chess. Or checkers. Or tic-tac-toe. As one of his aides put it during Shit Show I, “he’s just eating the pieces” on the board.
Nothing he does is strategic. He’s purely guided by narcissistic, sociopathic impulses at all times.
I'm of the feeling that we have seen peak Reform for the time being. Not sure they have that much more space to go.
Find Out Now @FindoutnowUK · 1h Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 28% (-1) 🔴 Labour: 24% (+1) 🔵 Conservatives: 20% (-1) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-) 🟢 Greens: 10% (+1) Changes from 12th February [Find Out Now, 19th February, N=2,393]
The more I look at these the more I suspect a proper Tory leader would have almost everything going for them right now. Gut Reform using Trump/Putin, steal some of their clothes and basically do Jim Hacker channeling Churchill. A lot of “we will take no lectures from our American cousins/friends criticise friends blah blah blah”.
A decent example of begging the question.
Of course, one wouldn’t want the job for one’s self but if one’s colleagues….
Is it possible to ward off the collapse of your world view by talking about bananas?
IMO it isn't. However I'm open to dissent.
No, but it is several steps better than flouncing.
I'll never flounce. One day I just won't be here and then that day will become a week, a month, a year, and still longer, until eventually all memory of me, and of everything I ever said, the betting calls, good and bad, the little jokes, good and bad, the bursts of whimsy, some pointless but many with an important message, is lost forever.
QUESTION. Has a journalist ever asked Musk which side he would have supported in WW2? He has expressed support for AfD, so it seems a reasonable question.
How strong are the links between Nigel Farage and AfD? Should journalists be asking him the same question?
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
Answer: yes, but not unqualified ones, which is what Lavrov is claiming.
And since, again, Russia is not the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been buried in an unmarked grave for 35 years the point is moot.
On the UN seat, which another poster raised, that is again more complicated as Ukraine and Belarus had their own seats at the UN. (This was a diplomatic finesse to ensure there would be more than one Communist member state.) So the Soviet seat was accepted as being Russia+ not theUSSR as a whole. That seat was still the subject of considerable diplomatic wrangling with the other 12 successor states.
I am really surprised at your ignorance. Russia inherited all of the treaties signed by the Soviet Union, I'd expect you to know this.
You could just admit you got it wrong, and that informal assurances were given in 1990.
II hate to continue this, but informal assurances are not treaties. They are not formal, and between individuals.
Both the countries and individuals involved were soon out of the picture. The idea that the assurances are somehow inherited by new governments is a little odd. That's why we write these things down and make them official.
Huh? of course assurances aren't treaties. what's your point?
If Scotland became independent, would all the understandings not in treaties that the UK has be immediately thrown in the bin?
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
Even if that were true, so what?
Just because some people in the past had a different view to some people currently in existence doesn't -say- justify, rape, murder, invasion and the like.
Well no of course not. But there is some truth in the idea that NATO promised not to expand in 1990
I hold no candle for Reform but let's not pretend they're exactly the same as the praetorian guard of MAGA.
Only 67% think Russia entirely or mostly responsible for the war.
Reform in noticeably more pro-putin than the other parties.
Russia isn’t entirely responsible for the war
NATO and the West promised not to push NATO to the frontiers of Russia, then we did exactly that. Then we wrestled over Ukraine itself, part of which is regarded as sacred Russia by Russians
Is Putin an evil murderous autocrat who launched a barbarous invasion causing a European tragedy and killing half a million purple? Yes yes yes. Does the west have *some* responsibility for stupidly goading and mishandling Russia? Also yes
ISTR you raising the idea of terrorist attacks in Red Square in a way that suggested they wouldn't exactly be abhorrent:
@Leon repeating the nonsense that "NATO promised not to expand". It did no such thing, indeed Russia itself seriously discussed joining.
Assurances were given by Germany, the US and others at the time of German reunification that NATO would not expand eastwards, but there was no formal promise.
AIR the very specific promise was that NATO forces would not be stationed in East Germany without the prior agreement of the USSR.
Which point became moot on the 31st December 1991.
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.’”
Even if those documents are accepted, and there are question marks over some of them, again the key word is ‘Soviet.’ After 1991 there was no Soviet Union to threaten.
Any assurances on NATO beyond East Germany would have been about de-escalating the Cold War. But by 1991 the Russians hated Communism more than the Americans did and there was no reason to expect it would recur.
The FSB coup that put Putin into power was the result of a combination of factors, but suggesting NATO expansion was critical is I think to underplay the role of economics and especially megalomania.
"Even if those documents are accepted,"
Listen to yourselves
On rare occasions Leon is right.
People denying that any assurances were ever given that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards are actually helping Kremlin propaganda.
But, as they say, truth is the first casualty of war.
Again, I think you are misunderstanding what was said and why.
Nobody disputes that NATO promised no NATO soldiers would be stationed in East Germany without Soviet agreement in the event of reunification, and that Soviet agreement would not be presumed. That was due to the very sensitive position of Germany at the time and the diplomatic complexities of reunification.
Similarly, nobody disputes that there were discussions about what would happen were other countries to leave the Warsaw Pact. It was agreed the Soviet Union as a Pact member had an interest in those proceedings if they came about. This was, again, so as not to startle the horses over Soviet withdrawal from Eastern Europe which Gorbachev was having enough trouble getting past his hardliners as it was.
The issue is that some of those people you quote re-read those as a cast iron guarantee that NATO would not seek eastward expansion ever under any circumstances. Which they were not.
Had the USSR survived it may have been different, but Russia was a separate state (it actually declared independence from the USSR) and so were the countries surrounding it. The diplomatic discussions referred to, which again were not guarantees, became moot.
To give you another example, the position of American troops in Europe as a whole was discussed. America was actually willing to withdraw from Europe entirely in exchange for a diplomatic settlement, if that was needed. But it wasn’t (and Gorbachev said, in fact, he thought that would be unwise anyway for a whole host of reasons). If American forces had left under such a deal and there was a civil war in Italy or Germany, or indeed American peacekeepers needed in Northern Ireland, would that have been a reason to refuse them?
Russia did not object to the expansion of NATO until Kosovo, by which time it was experiencing major financial turmoil. And Ukraine wouldn’t have talked of joining but for Russian meddling in its politics and economy from as long ago as 2003. It’s really not true to say that cast iron pledges were broken and that security concerns were a factor. This is about the Russian government’s greed for an empire.
So no, Leon is not right in this, and we can all relax until the Orange Haired one goes off again.
It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward? Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
That’s a very selective wording of a question.
I don't see what the problem is, but go ahead and put the question in a way you're happy with. It's just a matter of historical record.
Does Ukraine being interested in joining NATO and NATO being willing to consider the possibility constitute a legitimate casus belli for Russia to invade and annex territory?
that's a completely different, indeed unrelated (except for Putin and apologists), question.
It's the question that matters. It's the issue that hangs over the entire discussion.
ah ok, so it's ok to make shit up if you're on the right side of the 'entire discussion'? Is that what you are saying?
let's say that I am asking a question that really, really, really doesn't matter at all - how would you ask it, rather than changing it to a completely different question that does matter? as you objected to my wording.
I haven't said it's OK to make shit up.
We are in a context where Russia and her supporters are seeking to justify a war of aggression against Ukraine. They do this in various ways. One way they do this is to talk about NATO expansion. That's the only reason we're talking about this. Otherwise, it would be a niche discussion for historians alone.
In that context, your wording -- "It's a simple yes/no question: were promises (however non-binding and however different the context then) given to the USSR that NATO wouldn't expand eastward?" -- collapses a complex situation into a simple dichotomy. You demand a yes/ no answer. You explicitly exclude the non-binding nature of any comments and the different context. The result you get is a "yes". That "yes" then feeds into a Russian narrative as, without its context, it seems to legitimise that entire narrative.
A better question would allow for something more than yes/no. It would address the context and the nature of the promises made. For example: "How did NATO discuss possible expansion with the Soviet Union when the Iron Curtain fell; and how did the situation around NATO expansion change in the following years as the Soviet Union collapsed?" Or one could just directly ask, "How have narratives about NATO evolved in Russia and how have they been used to justify expansionism?"
Have you all become complete idiots? Someone posted a flat denial that any promise was ever made. That is false. Goodbye.
No promise was ever made to Russia.
Promises to the USSR ended with the dissolution of the USSR. Ukraine was a part of the USSR then, it's not since and no such commitment was ever made to Russia since Russia and Ukraine both declared independence from the USSR.
The Times today: "As the Lords economic affairs committee wrote to Liz Kendall last month, the £65 billion incapacity and disability benefits bill is now 20 per cent higher than Britain’s entire defence budget – and is due to reach £100 billion by 2029-30."
This is mad.
Plausible. The Boomers (born between 1945 and Dec 1964) are now all in their 60s, with the oldest being 80. There's a lot of them and between 2030-35 they'll be between 65 and 90, or "peak old people". Keeping them in a decent state as they slip into the dark will be very expensive. I don't know how to fix this.
But this is the incapacity and disability benefits bill, so not the retired? (or not just the retired)
Would love to know how much of it is going on housing benefit as I suspect that going to be a very hefty chunk
Local Housing Allowance (which is the one that used to be called HB) is about £15.612bn, which is about half of what it was at peak. I'm not sure on the Social Sector / PRS split at present.
That's a very remarkable drop, in a kind of "this is too good to be true" sort of a way. Any idea what is apparently driving it?
I'm of the feeling that we have seen peak Reform for the time being. Not sure they have that much more space to go.
Find Out Now @FindoutnowUK · 1h Find Out Now voting intention: 🟦 Reform UK: 28% (-1) 🔴 Labour: 24% (+1) 🔵 Conservatives: 20% (-1) 🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-) 🟢 Greens: 10% (+1) Changes from 12th February [Find Out Now, 19th February, N=2,393]
The more I look at these the more I suspect a proper Tory leader would have almost everything going for them right now. Gut Reform using Trump/Putin, steal some of their clothes and basically do Jim Hacker channeling Churchill. A lot of “we will take no lectures from our American cousins/friends criticise friends blah blah blah”.
Ignoring the 14 year record of grift, chaos and penury, that is.
I reckon the right gobshite could repudiate the last few years and conjure up rose tinted memories of a more stable world under Cameron. Or even the moment just before Covid hit.
Milliband had got some life out of the Labour brand by 2016; and Starmer did pure necromancy to revive the Labour corpse in 2021/2.
Given Labour haven't revived leveling up, I think there's a gap there. Call them the London party between now and the next election.
(This is why cancelling HS2 was so short-sighted. Why not force Labour to make that decision).
Is it possible to ward off the collapse of your world view by talking about bananas?
IMO it isn't. However I'm open to dissent.
Bananas are genetically doomed and are another source of trade friction between Britain and America despite the fact neither of us grows the things. Banana republics have historically been on the receiving end of Uncle Sam's mailed fist but no-one talks about its treating Central and South America like the Russians treat theirs.
So bananas are not a good topic imo. Nor is Topic since Mars stopped making them.
And somewhat unbelievably I've just had one. First for over a year.
Is it possible to ward off the collapse of your world view by talking about bananas?
IMO it isn't. However I'm open to dissent.
No, but it is several steps better than flouncing.
I'll never flounce. One day I just won't be here and then that day will become a week, a month, a year, and still longer, until eventually all memory of me, and of everything I ever said, the betting calls, good and bad, the little jokes, good and bad, the bursts of whimsy, some pointless but many with an important message, is lost forever.
The Times today: "As the Lords economic affairs committee wrote to Liz Kendall last month, the £65 billion incapacity and disability benefits bill is now 20 per cent higher than Britain’s entire defence budget – and is due to reach £100 billion by 2029-30."
This is mad.
Plausible. The Boomers (born between 1945 and Dec 1964) are now all in their 60s, with the oldest being 80. There's a lot of them and between 2030-35 they'll be between 65 and 90, or "peak old people". Keeping them in a decent state as they slip into the dark will be very expensive. I don't know how to fix this.
But this is the incapacity and disability benefits bill, so not the retired? (or not just the retired)
Would love to know how much of it is going on housing benefit as I suspect that going to be a very hefty chunk
Local Housing Allowance (which is the one that used to be called HB) is about £15.612bn, which is about half of what it was at peak. I'm not sure on the Social Sector / PRS split at present.
That's a very remarkable drop, in a kind of "this is too good to be true" sort of a way. Any idea what is apparently driving it?
The year it peaked is when reforms like the cap and "bedroom tax" etc were introduced. So perhaps that has had an impact?
Or it's still getting claimed in Universal Credit but isn't showing in those figures so the figures are wrong.
Comments
But I specified SMALL mustelids so you can keep badgers
I get a massive thrill out of seeing mustelids in the wild. I’ve seen all of them in the UK I think - stoat, weasel, mink, polecat - only missing one is pine marten (very rare). A genuine thrill. And then all the weird ones abroad!
I’d be loathe to give that up so I reckon I’d give up “nodding vigorously”. I’d probably adopt a new technique of tilting my head slightly to the right and saying, in a slow voice, “so right”! That would actually be more impressive than nodding. Nodding is so fucking boring. Sort of thing @kinabalu does after golf
However what happens in a crowded place where people can’t hear my laconic “so right”. Well then I’d forewarn everyone. I’d just send out an email beforehand saying “I’m not allowed to nod vigorously so if I agree with you a lot I’ll stand up and hop around the room” which totally puts that problem to bed
Dawn is seriously underrated. Head out an hour before sunrise and you are just one animal among thousands. And then the clatter of humanity presents itself.
Did I mention the form?
Men are bony, hairy, hard, aspergy and misanthropic. Also a bit aggressive.
Forget gay, I honestly don't know why there aren't more lesbians.
PS Should add it isn't real camping. It's for softies. Beds, fridge, etc.
I remember once arguing this with @Topping. I was puzzled why anyone would wish to spend tens of millions, buying a row of houses in central London, and knocking them into one. Why would you care?
This forum is interesting precisely because people disagree, the more vehemently the better imo, as long as it's coherent and not personal.
If you get wound up, go cool off somewhere then come back with a witty (or devastatingly accurate) riposte. Or just mentally tick that person off your ignore list.
Where else on the Interwebz would you get this?
By comparison with all of human history most people have never had it so good, but c.f. to what you see on social media?
Is it possible to ward off the collapse of your world view by talking about bananas?
IMO it isn't. However I'm open to dissent.
When I was a student, especially in summer, I got a bit nocturnal. I'd write essays at night, then head out about dawn to go and type them up in the all-night computer rooms. I loved being out and about at dawn. No mustelids, but birds, quiet and fresh air and magical light. I'd then emerge from the computer rooms about 8am, and the world would be full of noise and petrol fumes.
Now they can compare themselves to fakes on social media who seem little better or even worse than themselves yet have a better lifestyle and that creates a significant issue.
Another part is that I suspect people only put good things on social media and hide the bad news / events from view
But when you're horny a bloke is much quicker to sort.
I mean, @bondegezou. How do you even get as boring and self righteous as that clueless prick?
Let them shut up for a week
I just wish when they did they weren't to vain and self-centred as to make a song and dance about it. If you are going then just go.
Steve Witkoff emerges as force in Trump’s foreign policy
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5154087-trump-special-envoy-steve-witkoff/
Witkoff possesses the necessary expertise lacking in traditional Washington; he's a real estate investor.
Find Out Now
@FindoutnowUK
·
1h
Find Out Now voting intention:
🟦 Reform UK: 28% (-1)
🔴 Labour: 24% (+1)
🔵 Conservatives: 20% (-1)
🟠 Lib Dems: 12% (-)
🟢 Greens: 10% (+1)
Changes from 12th February
[Find Out Now, 19th February, N=2,393]
(A wrong answer on the Chase no less !!!)
Flouncing is one of the great PB arts. A really good flounce is a thing of unusual beauty
Even better is the genuinely permanent flounce - like a kind of white stag - impossibly rare but exquisite when witnessed, on the silent edge of the forest of reality
I myself have permanently flounced TWICE which is I think a record unlikely to be broken
He seems to be the only one who can get that Quisling Farage to go to ground.
For this, much thanks.
Your email needs to have reached Phoebe in advance, which poses a challenge.
Luckily I think I have the solution: you could revive the sadly ignored viral letter. You are old enough to remember the one, surely. It has as it's header 'you must send this on to ten people in your address book or a mustelid will die' or somesuch.
You need only announce your newfangled workaround for nodding vigorously in said viral letter and hey presto!
That’s exceptionally rare. I believe I’m the only pb-er who has done it twice
I’m genuinely baffled by @kamski today - normally an interesting and intelligent poster who seems to have got painted into an unnecessary corner.
What s/he has said is:
1) There are documents claiming informal assurances about NATO expansion were given to the USSR in existence. This is true. Nobody disputes this. Whether they are correct is a different question given they were written in a different time and context to push a particular policy goal.
2) That if such assurances were given are not part of any treaty. Also true. Nobody disputes that.
3) That the USSR and Russia are the same thing in diplomatic terms for treaties. Yes and no is the answer. Because Russia declared independence from the USSR its status as the successor state had to be negotiated over a period of two years, but it was so negotiated (with, ironically, a lot of arm twisting involved from the USA under Bush). But also, not relevant, as no such treaty was made about eastward expansion except for East Germany where the point is moot.
4) Then gets *very* agitated when several people want to discuss these points.
Genuinely surprised.
Anyway, just getting to Berwick and the sun’s out. Later.
A new, slightly larger yacht at Monaco diminishes the happiness of everyone with a shorter… boat.
They feel this intensely.
See the number of people with mad, liar loans, so they can drive a 6 figure priced SUV on the salary of a junior estate agent.
There's a 3300 acre forest park next door called Sherwood Pines (Forestry England), with all the usual facilities - including cycling circuits at the usual levels but a little easier, orienteering and the rest.
What made it especially notable in the Annals of Flouncing was that the same guy using the same name managed to be exactly as boring and forgettable as himself
So bananas are not a good topic imo. Nor is Topic since Mars stopped making them.
The best ones are like a quadruple axle in the figure skating - the build up, the crowd on tenterhooks, the performance…
One of my favourites quotes was from a friend on a not-generous income, doing what he wanted to do:
"I go window shopping to look at all the things I don't need to buy."
I've never really seen why anyone would be bothered.
A. "It wasn't me, it was the Ukrainians!"
But if I were to go back to Centerparcs in Sherwood, I would try my best to persuade my family to leave as often as possible.
It takes many forms, and it is part of human nature, really.
What you don’t realise is that I often flounce without telling people then I come back 3 minutes later. Only a Flouncemaster General can do that
Indeed I remember once I flounced during the typing of a single word, yet then carried on typing the word less than half a second later. That kind of flouncing is elite stuff but is frankly wasted on most
Milliband had got some life out of the Labour brand by 2016; and Starmer did pure necromancy to revive the Labour corpse in 2021/2.
(Unless I have inverted my parties and wrongly identified the protagonist
The refusal to allow both things to be true while arguing the toss is where it all kicked off.
A PB Flounce only happens if it is observed. Your basic Quantum Mechanics stuff.
One of *their* challenges is maintaining the integrity of their pay-boundary whilst encouraging through routes, and that they have been totally geared towards motor vehicles since about 1930 (my estimate) for their significant properties, and especially since the 1950s.
I think there is probably something in the posh end of Youth Hostels, now they lean more towards separate rooms.
Bingo. I keep telling people I know that there’s no grand plan here, or to anything he does. He’s not playing 4D chess. He’s a fascistic sociopath that seeks adoration and applause for everything he does, and he wants to be the focus of EVERYTHING.
It’s that simple, folks, don’t overthink it.
@gtconway.bsky.social
Correct. He’s not capable of playing multidimensional chess. Or chess. Or checkers. Or tic-tac-toe. As one of his aides put it during Shit Show I, “he’s just eating the pieces” on the board.
Nothing he does is strategic. He’s purely guided by narcissistic, sociopathic impulses at all times.
Has a journalist ever asked Musk which side he would have supported in WW2?
He has expressed support for AfD, so it seems a reasonable question.
How strong are the links between Nigel Farage and AfD?
Should journalists be asking him the same question?
Promises to the USSR ended with the dissolution of the USSR. Ukraine was a part of the USSR then, it's not since and no such commitment was ever made to Russia since Russia and Ukraine both declared independence from the USSR.
"(She) is less grateful than her promotion deserves and more entitled than professionals should be when selected by the PM for high office,”.
Liz Truss has analysed the situation.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/20/liz-truss-cpac-speech
(This is why cancelling HS2 was so short-sighted. Why not force Labour to make that decision).
Or it's still getting claimed in Universal Credit but isn't showing in those figures so the figures are wrong.
One or the other would be my guess.