"It would have been better if the West just left Ukraine in Russia's sphere of influence until the West was capable of properly standing up to Putin."
----------
In other words, realpolitik rather than liberal interventionism.
The West's Drang nach Osten (drive to the East) since 2007 has led to disaster with the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives due to the failure to consider geo-political reality. Encroaching on Russia is very difficult, as the leaders of Poland-Lithuania, Sweden, France and Germany learnt to their cost in the 17th century, 1708-9, 1812 and 1941-4 respectively.
Whatever one might think of Trump, at least he is trying to stop this horrific conflict as soon as possible. Only history will be the judge of the wisdom of his approach.
There is just a possibility that Starmer may have a "Love Actually" moment when he goes to the US shortly, where he makes clear that our relationship with the US is no longer as strong as it was, that this behaviour has consequences and you don't get to be leaders of the free world by having a completely self interested, transactional view of the world and allies.
I am not hugely optimistic but he should reflect on some of the polling in the header. It could do more for his popularity than anything he has done since coming to Downing Street (a low bar, admittedly). More importantly, someone needs to wake the Americans up from their thrall and it needs to be done in a way that is impossible to ignore.
The poster in the header is exactly where I am but it is Americans who need to do something about this.
I expect that Farage will abandon a sinking ship. Even Reform voters are hostile to Putin, even if less hostile than other parties' supporters.
Doubt it. People will find a way to normalise Russia's dominance and Farage will be following closely behind. It's going to be a tricky period for Europe and Farage will be able to pick away at fragile arrangements.
The most interesting result from all of this though, IMHO, is how the Labour Party responds.
Might this now give the government that sense of purpose it has been sorely lacking? Can Starmer move the Labour Party even further away from its natural instincts and create a strong national defence policy? It immediately helps get spades in the ground on defence projects. It even gives some political cover for more tax rises and spending cuts. I’m not sure how well Starmer (and particularly Reeves) can sell any of this stuff, but this is the path forward for Labour.
Trumps comments really have changed the landscape in terms of defence . They also give Labour more leeway with their EU reset.
Gives Labour an excuse to kick Carbon Capture into the long grass. £20b on defence will stop all the nasty pollutants from Russian tanks and missiles and keep the sea temperature from going up as nuclear bonbs come down.
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.
The only question here is, so what if NATO is pushing eastward? How does that justify Russia invading neighbouring countries. Russia invading other countries demonstrates the need for NATO to push eastwards.
Well exactly, so why do people insist on making the incorrect statement that no assurances were ever given? It weakens everything else they say
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.’”
It’s a lot more complex than that. You’re just posting things aligned with Russian propaganda, ignoring events after 1990 and what was actually agreed, and pretending that democracies can’t change their views.
You might as well argue that the UK is currently opposed to a unified Germany because Thatcher was in 1989.
Huh? Where am I suggesting any of that?
The correct analogy would be: People post that Thatcher was always in favour of German reunification, and I post documentary evidence that in 1989 she was opposed.
You are replying to posts about whether Russia is justified to state that NATO gave it assurances on expansion, which it did not. As several have stated, as most there was some vague discussion of it with the Soviet Union. But of course Russia itself declared independence from the Soviet Union and its PM even stood on a tank to demonstrate the point; so that’s irrelevant.
Have a look at yourself. I linked to declassified US documents showing that in 1990 the Soviet Union was given assurances that NATO wouldn't expand eastward and you immediately accuse me of spreading Kremlin propaganda!
You are the one helping Kremlin propaganda. When the Kremlin says "it's NATO’s fault for breaking the promise not to expand" and the response is to make an absolute denial that any kind of promise was ever made, it helps Kremlin propaganda. Because people who might not be well-informed might nevertheless hear this exchange, find out that you are factually incorrect, and therefore be more likely to believe the Kremlin's many actual lies.
The correct response is to point out no formal promise was given, things changed a lot rapidly, and to ask why former Warsaw Pact countries were so keen to join NATO, which as sovereign countries they have every right to do. And say other countries joining NATO is no excuse for an unprovoked illegal invasion of Ukraine.
The thing I immediately apologised for, leaving my post in place as a mea culpa, rather than deleting it, specifically as an olive branch?
You have then lied about my comments and put words in my mouth.
You’re obviously one to ignore. I had thought you were better than that, but sadly not.
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.
None one of us is quite saying that. What we are saying is that any idea that any such discussion in 1990 implied any “live” agreement by 2014 or in the present day is nonsense. There is no treaty and so nothing other than political statements from 30 years ago; and we’re democracies so we change our minds. Especially since Russia pre-Putin was a very different country that even toyed with NATO membership itself.
Fair enough. But why didn't you just say that in the first place?
The most interesting result from all of this though, IMHO, is how the Labour Party responds.
Might this now give the government that sense of purpose it has been sorely lacking? Can Starmer move the Labour Party even further away from its natural instincts and create a strong national defence policy? It immediately helps get spades in the ground on defence projects. It even gives some political cover for more tax rises and spending cuts. I’m not sure how well Starmer (and particularly Reeves) can sell any of this stuff, but this is the path forward for Labour.
The Labour Party has never been weak on defence - it was the Atlee government that developed the British nuclear deterrent, and the big cuts to defence spending in recent decades have all happened under the Tories. I have no doubt that the government will do whatever is needed to defend this country and support our allies.
Labour wobbled a bit on defence under Foot (1980-1983) and remained unelectable for some time, partly because of this. And all my life, until perhaps fairly recently, it has always had a few MPs who acted as if on behalf of our enemies. No doubt their views were sincerely held; the ones I am thinking of are all safely dead.
(Led to the rise in support for the far right would be a better way of phrasing it.)
They absolutely should. Standing aside in moral superiority is no way to win friends for their cause. Similarly, there should be no recourse to cancel culture. The left has a lot of work to do and needs to raise its game if it is to halt the West's incipient slide into fascism.
Is this actually a terrible thing? After all, as we've seen across Europe, centre, centre-right activists have been willing to work with the hard right. Perhaps the compromises are only one way, with centre / centre-right parties unwilling to move slightly left on policy. Compromise requires movement in both directions. The west's "incipient slide into facism" is being driven by a media controlled by a small number of right wing billionaires, not by left wing activists refusing to adopt their policies.
I agree with a lot of this but the left needs to engage with people's concerns rather than just tell them they are awful people.
It’s two way traffic though. Now Sir Keir & co have repented of their support for Corbyn, they seem pretty disengaged from the concerns of the hundreds of thousands of (mainly young) supporters he attracted, hence the meagre Labour share at the last GE. One of the least attractive traits of centrist Labour (epitomised by SLab as it happens) is the impression that the natural order has been restored when they regain power, and they can resume their way of doing things without bothering much with any progressive coalition building.
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.
But he speaks as if protecting those countries - which had finally and bravely broken free from Soviet dictatorship and been on the receiving end of Russian aggression and imperialism for centuries - from renewed Russian adventurism, is a bad thing?
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.
Assurances made to a different regime, by past administrations, and in no way binding on their successors, have even less force in respect of the democracies who decided they wanted to apply to join NATO.
As a pretext for invading a sovereign state, particularly in the context of Russia's prior aggressions, it's not even threadbare.
The most interesting result from all of this though, IMHO, is how the Labour Party responds.
Might this now give the government that sense of purpose it has been sorely lacking? Can Starmer move the Labour Party even further away from its natural instincts and create a strong national defence policy? It immediately helps get spades in the ground on defence projects. It even gives some political cover for more tax rises and spending cuts. I’m not sure how well Starmer (and particularly Reeves) can sell any of this stuff, but this is the path forward for Labour.
The Labour Party has never been weak on defence - it was the Atlee government that developed the British nuclear deterrent, and the big cuts to defence spending in recent decades have all happened under the Tories. I have no doubt that the government will do whatever is needed to defend this country and support our allies.
Labour wobbled a bit on defence under Foot (1980-1983) and remained unelectable for some time, partly because of this. And all my life, until perhaps fairly recently, it has always had a few MPs who acted as if on behalf of our enemies. No doubt their views were sincerely held; the ones I am thinking of are all safely dead.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Labour governments have never been weak on defence.
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.
That’s not correct
The assurance was that there would be no NATO troops on *former GDR territory while Soviet troops were still there*. That’s why the commitment could be made by Kohl and no one else.
At the time the promise was made the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union still existed - why on earth would the USSR ask for a commitment that NATO wasn’t going to station troops on Warsaw Pact territory? The idea was literally inconceivable to them because it presupposes that the USSR would lose all of Eastern Europe
In national law, "illegal" means nothing unless the state is willing to use violence to enforce the law, i.e. arrest and imprison. The same applies in international law. If we, i.e. other countries including Britain are not willing to use violence to enforce the law, i.e. military and economic action, then "illegal" means nothing and is irrelevant.
There is just a possibility that Starmer may have a "Love Actually" moment when he goes to the US shortly, where he makes clear that our relationship with the US is no longer as strong as it was, that this behaviour has consequences and you don't get to be leaders of the free world by having a completely self interested, transactional view of the world and allies.
I am not hugely optimistic but he should reflect on some of the polling in the header. It could do more for his popularity than anything he has done since coming to Downing Street (a low bar, admittedly). More importantly, someone needs to wake the Americans up from their thrall and it needs to be done in a way that is impossible to ignore.
The poster in the header is exactly where I am but it is Americans who need to do something about this.
Britain has chosen, from immediate self interest, to triangulate and try and act as a bridge between the US and Europe. I think in the immediate term Starmer has to keep up that facade, but I do not see this as a long term policy, and I think should only maintained until so long as we see Trump’s intentions, deliver the Ukrainian settlement, and have time to discuss and decide the way forwards with Europe.
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.
As was observed yesterday, it actually costs the US significantly less to station troops overseas than it would if they were all based in the US.
As Donald Rumsfeld observerd, *politically* bringing them home is easier.
Troops overseas hits retention and means they spend their money there. Base closures in the US were (and are a big thing). Being able to hand out *new* bases would be an awesome political…. sweetie for the politicians involved.
Hence the Rumsfeld plan (not implemented because of 9//11) to bring lots of troops home. But station armies of equipment and ammunition around the world, in storage. You could fly the soldiers in within hours - the bit that would take weeks was the heavy logistics stuff.
President Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday aimed at eliminating a handful of federal advisory committees.
The order targets the Presidio Trust, the Inter-American Foundation, the United States African Development Foundation and the United States Institute of Peace – all of which have received federal funding. ... "I hope that the court system is going to allow us to do what we have to do," Trump said, adding that he would always abide by a court’s ruling but will be prepared to appeal.
(Led to the rise in support for the far right would be a better way of phrasing it.)
And those are the kind of people on Bluesky
But you won't ever get this
Wouldn’t it be better to join Blue Sky and balance out the opinion instead of grumbling on the sidelines? Gove them some balance, good and hard.
I had a look - and I still have an account there
As a quiet tea shop to discuss architecture or lexicology or bioscience it is nice, funny, warm. Like Twitter was at its innocent best ten years ago. If you use it just for certain (not all) niche interests it's perfectly fine
As a place to debate politics and other hot issues it is worse than useless, it is dangerous. The lefties are gonna lock themselves away there and become even more bubbled and silo'd, and even more surprised by reality when it hits
No way I'm wasting my precious, lucrative prose on these Bluesky fools. I already waste it on enough fools, elsewhere
That’s the story of some of the British right, probably a small amount...A lot of the British right can’t stand Trump and Musk and their autocratic/kleptocratic values and their economic idiocy.
I'm happy to take your word that a lot of the British Right are not Muskovite MAGA, but in turn please accept that the upper echelons of the Conservative Party, especially Kemi Badenoch, are.
There is just a possibility that Starmer may have a "Love Actually" moment when he goes to the US shortly, where he makes clear that our relationship with the US is no longer as strong as it was, that this behaviour has consequences and you don't get to be leaders of the free world by having a completely self interested, transactional view of the world and allies.
I am not hugely optimistic but he should reflect on some of the polling in the header. It could do more for his popularity than anything he has done since coming to Downing Street (a low bar, admittedly). More importantly, someone needs to wake the Americans up from their thrall and it needs to be done in a way that is impossible to ignore.
The poster in the header is exactly where I am but it is Americans who need to do something about this.
Britain has chosen, from immediate self interest, to triangulate and try and act as a bridge between the US and Europe. I think in the immediate term Starmer has to keep up that facade, but I do not see this as a long term policy, and I think should only maintained until so long as we see Trump’s intentions, deliver the Ukrainian settlement, and have time to discuss and decide the way forwards with Europe.
I'm not convinced that triangulation is a viable tactic with Trump. You either capitulate, or (politely or otherwise) stand up to 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?
There is just a possibility that Starmer may have a "Love Actually" moment when he goes to the US shortly, where he makes clear that our relationship with the US is no longer as strong as it was, that this behaviour has consequences and you don't get to be leaders of the free world by having a completely self interested, transactional view of the world and allies.
I am not hugely optimistic but he should reflect on some of the polling in the header. It could do more for his popularity than anything he has done since coming to Downing Street (a low bar, admittedly). More importantly, someone needs to wake the Americans up from their thrall and it needs to be done in a way that is impossible to ignore.
The poster in the header is exactly where I am but it is Americans who need to do something about this.
"There is just a possibility that Starmer may have a "Love Actually" moment..."
Ways to index a changing world. Last year I voted Labour in a GE, never having done so in over 50 years. Yesterday I agreed with James O'Brien about something. Am I ill or have we all gone mad?
"It would have been better if the West just left Ukraine in Russia's sphere of influence until the West was capable of properly standing up to Putin."
----------
In other words, realpolitik rather than liberal interventionism.
The West's Drang nach Osten (drive to the East) since 2007 has led to disaster with the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives due to the failure to consider geo-political reality. Encroaching on Russia is very difficult, as the leaders of Poland-Lithuania, Sweden, France and Germany learnt to their cost in the 17th century, 1708-9, 1812 and 1941-4 respectively.
Whatever one might think of Trump, at least he is trying to stop this horrific conflict as soon as possible. Only history will be the judge of the wisdom of his approach.
PSA: It's Thursday, not Saturday, so PBers still need to go to work (AKA roll out of bed).
There is just a possibility that Starmer may have a "Love Actually" moment when he goes to the US shortly, where he makes clear that our relationship with the US is no longer as strong as it was, that this behaviour has consequences and you don't get to be leaders of the free world by having a completely self interested, transactional view of the world and allies.
I am not hugely optimistic but he should reflect on some of the polling in the header. It could do more for his popularity than anything he has done since coming to Downing Street (a low bar, admittedly). More importantly, someone needs to wake the Americans up from their thrall and it needs to be done in a way that is impossible to ignore.
The poster in the header is exactly where I am but it is Americans who need to do something about this.
It's a stupid kind of transactionalism. Not the kind that operates on the basis of tit for tat, and enlightened self-interest.
It's fucking people over for a short term gain that gives no more than a fleeting advantage.
Kissinger said that the US needs to avoid giving the impression that "while it might be dangerous to be an adversary of the United States, to be an ally is lethal."
Right now, Trump & Co. are teaching us that to be a US ally is lethal.
There is just a possibility that Starmer may have a "Love Actually" moment when he goes to the US shortly, where he makes clear that our relationship with the US is no longer as strong as it was, that this behaviour has consequences and you don't get to be leaders of the free world by having a completely self interested, transactional view of the world and allies.
I am not hugely optimistic but he should reflect on some of the polling in the header. It could do more for his popularity than anything he has done since coming to Downing Street (a low bar, admittedly). More importantly, someone needs to wake the Americans up from their thrall and it needs to be done in a way that is impossible to ignore.
The poster in the header is exactly where I am but it is Americans who need to do something about this.
Britain has chosen, from immediate self interest, to triangulate and try and act as a bridge between the US and Europe. I think in the immediate term Starmer has to keep up that facade, but I do not see this as a long term policy, and I think should only maintained until so long as we see Trump’s intentions, deliver the Ukrainian settlement, and have time to discuss and decide the way forwards with Europe.
Britain has been all-in on its relationship with the US since the second world war. Everything we do strategically is rooted in that relationship. Trump has broken it but you can't just switch it off. I don't think the UK has any realistic choice but to try and salvage what it can.
There is just a possibility that Starmer may have a "Love Actually" moment when he goes to the US shortly, where he makes clear that our relationship with the US is no longer as strong as it was, that this behaviour has consequences and you don't get to be leaders of the free world by having a completely self interested, transactional view of the world and allies.
I am not hugely optimistic but he should reflect on some of the polling in the header. It could do more for his popularity than anything he has done since coming to Downing Street (a low bar, admittedly). More importantly, someone needs to wake the Americans up from their thrall and it needs to be done in a way that is impossible to ignore.
The poster in the header is exactly where I am but it is Americans who need to do something about this.
Britain has chosen, from immediate self interest, to triangulate and try and act as a bridge between the US and Europe. I think in the immediate term Starmer has to keep up that facade, but I do not see this as a long term policy, and I think should only maintained until so long as we see Trump’s intentions, deliver the Ukrainian settlement, and have time to discuss and decide the way forwards with Europe.
I'm not convinced that triangulation is a viable tactic with Trump. You either capitulate, or (politely or otherwise) stand up to him.
But it's at least worth a try.
It’s not a viable tactic moving forwards , I agree. But now we’ve tried that gambit we need to follow it through while we assess the next moves.
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?
The most interesting result from all of this though, IMHO, is how the Labour Party responds.
Might this now give the government that sense of purpose it has been sorely lacking? Can Starmer move the Labour Party even further away from its natural instincts and create a strong national defence policy? It immediately helps get spades in the ground on defence projects. It even gives some political cover for more tax rises and spending cuts. I’m not sure how well Starmer (and particularly Reeves) can sell any of this stuff, but this is the path forward for Labour.
The Labour Party has never been weak on defence - it was the Atlee government that developed the British nuclear deterrent, and the big cuts to defence spending in recent decades have all happened under the Tories. I have no doubt that the government will do whatever is needed to defend this country and support our allies.
Labour wobbled a bit on defence under Foot (1980-1983) and remained unelectable for some time, partly because of this. And all my life, until perhaps fairly recently, it has always had a few MPs who acted as if on behalf of our enemies. No doubt their views were sincerely held; the ones I am thinking of are all safely dead.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that Labour governments have never been weak on defence.
When weak on defence, Labour was never electable as a Government.
It's why Farage and Reform might get to rule Arslikan. But not the UK.
There is just a possibility that Starmer may have a "Love Actually" moment when he goes to the US shortly, where he makes clear that our relationship with the US is no longer as strong as it was, that this behaviour has consequences and you don't get to be leaders of the free world by having a completely self interested, transactional view of the world and allies.
I am not hugely optimistic but he should reflect on some of the polling in the header. It could do more for his popularity than anything he has done since coming to Downing Street (a low bar, admittedly). More importantly, someone needs to wake the Americans up from their thrall and it needs to be done in a way that is impossible to ignore.
The poster in the header is exactly where I am but it is Americans who need to do something about this.
Britain has chosen, from immediate self interest, to triangulate and try and act as a bridge between the US and Europe. I think in the immediate term Starmer has to keep up that facade, but I do not see this as a long term policy, and I think should only maintained until so long as we see Trump’s intentions, deliver the Ukrainian settlement, and have time to discuss and decide the way forwards with Europe.
I'm not convinced that triangulation is a viable tactic with Trump. You either capitulate, or (politely or otherwise) stand up to him.
But it's at least worth a try.
I think that Churchill ... mentioned yesterday, and his tactics, are a good comparison / contrast.
As are UK political tactics in the lead up to WW1 and WW2, especially before the USA came on board, and around their reluctance to learn from others.
If Chump is a dealmaker, and the USA continue to be as cynically indifferent about whether non-USA citizens live or die compared to US interests as they have been for the last 250 years, then they will happily sell us arms until we are an opponent, or they decide they need strong leverage - even if we start to pivot away from dependence.
Ways to index a changing world. Last year I voted Labour in a GE, never having done so in over 50 years. Yesterday I agreed with James O'Brien about something. Am I ill or have we all gone mad?
Someone Derangement Syndrome, I'll be bound. It has been used to explain (or avoid explaining) everything for the past ten or so years.
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 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.
The only question here is, so what if NATO is pushing eastward? How does that justify Russia invading neighbouring countries. Russia invading other countries demonstrates the need for NATO to push eastwards.
Well exactly, so why do people insist on making the incorrect statement that no assurances were ever given? It weakens everything else they say
Ways to index a changing world. Last year I voted Labour in a GE, never having done so in over 50 years. Yesterday I agreed with James O'Brien about something. Am I ill or have we all gone mad?
These events are the sorts of things that fundamentally shift one’s worldview. The last couple of days have really flipped a lot of my thoughts on how we approach the new Trumpian US and what our role in the world is.
Reflecting on the Ukraine position, three main takeaways:
1) Putin has overplayed his hand. There was a landing zone for a peace deal that was relatively favourable for Russia but that Ukraine felt obliged to accept due to the threat to the US withdrawing her troops. However, the basis of negotiations so far are so favourable to Russia, including Trump spouting Russian propaganda we're usually subject to on a Saturday morning, that is not viable. Ukraine will keep on fighting without US aid rather than accept such terms. We will support them in doing so.
2) Trump will cosy up to Russia regardless and loosen sanctions / do business deals. He will blame Ukraine for his deal being scuppered and cast Zelenskyy as a scapegoat.
3) Europe and the UK will maintain sanctions on Russia, which will make things complicated for multinationals. In the absence of US sanctions I think the UK will become important in applying financial pressure regarding banking etc. Military spending is also going to rise well above 2.5% of GDP now that the US no longer protects Europe.
That’s probably correct.
The important thing to watch is the NA subs of European banks. Will they trade with Russia (in which case sanctions are pointless) or will the EU enforce sanctions policy globally on anyone who wants to operate in Europe.
And will Trump say that anyone who sanctions Russia can’t trade in the US…
There is just a possibility that Starmer may have a "Love Actually" moment when he goes to the US shortly, where he makes clear that our relationship with the US is no longer as strong as it was, that this behaviour has consequences and you don't get to be leaders of the free world by having a completely self interested, transactional view of the world and allies.
I am not hugely optimistic but he should reflect on some of the polling in the header. It could do more for his popularity than anything he has done since coming to Downing Street (a low bar, admittedly). More importantly, someone needs to wake the Americans up from their thrall and it needs to be done in a way that is impossible to ignore.
The poster in the header is exactly where I am but it is Americans who need to do something about this.
It's a stupid kind of transactionalism. Not the kind that operates on the basis of tit for tat, and enlightened self-interest.
It's fucking people over for a short term gain that gives no more than a fleeting advantage.
Kissinger said that the US needs to avoid giving the impression that "while it might be dangerous to be an adversary of the United States, to be an ally is lethal."
Right now, Trump & Co. are teaching us that to be a US ally is lethal.
Trouble is that fucking people over for short term advantage is Trump's idea of what business is. It's the gaping hole at the heart of the Apprentice format, and also the story of DJT's career.
Musk I'm less sure about. Though the pace of change in tech might reward a certain kind of grabbing fleeting advantage while it's still there.
Marco Rubio: “For years to come, there are many people on the right…that are going to be having to explain and justify how they fell into this trap of supporting Donald Trump because this is not going to end well.” (2016)
Every time Trump picks a target to bully - from other countries through individual TV shows and personalities within the US - he's going to lose a few supporters who see that he's talking dishonest BS and will then come to see the damage that he's been doing.
It will take time, but eventually the dam will burst.
I have to assume that this is irony. Trump has been the dominant figure in American politics for almost a decade, longer than perhaps anyone in American history other than FDR, Jackson and TR. The 'dam bursting' has been predicted ever since he came down the escalator in 2015 to announce his candidacy. Almost ten years later, he is a two-time winner of the biggest electoral prize in the democratic world (again, only FDR can beat that) and can't be defeated again. The city has already been flooded.
That’s the story of some of the British right, probably a small amount...A lot of the British right can’t stand Trump and Musk and their autocratic/kleptocratic values and their economic idiocy.
I'm happy to take your word that a lot of the British Right are not Muskovite MAGA, but in turn please accept that the upper echelons of the Conservative Party, especially Kemi Badenoch, are.
Can’t agree with that I’m afraid. Kemi isn’t a Muskogee MAGA. She’s an empty vessel thrashing around for any interesting angle to base her leadership on. Looking to take on Reform on one hand and win centrists on the other.
She is one of those people who sits in an office and gets angry about their MD and other bosses because she knows she is better than them if only she’s given the chance.
Unfortunately when given the chance and promoted she has no idea what direction the company needs to go in, no idea about how the company got successful in the first place and her knowledge is limited to the sector she worked in and not transferable.
Unfortunately they need to ditch asap, get a grey hair to hold the fort whilst they start finding quality somewhere behind the sofa who actually has some sort of vision for what the Tories are for so they can sell that to the voters.
There is just a possibility that Starmer may have a "Love Actually" moment when he goes to the US shortly, where he makes clear that our relationship with the US is no longer as strong as it was, that this behaviour has consequences and you don't get to be leaders of the free world by having a completely self interested, transactional view of the world and allies.
I am not hugely optimistic but he should reflect on some of the polling in the header. It could do more for his popularity than anything he has done since coming to Downing Street (a low bar, admittedly). More importantly, someone needs to wake the Americans up from their thrall and it needs to be done in a way that is impossible to ignore.
The poster in the header is exactly where I am but it is Americans who need to do something about this.
"There is just a possibility that Starmer may have a "Love Actually" moment..."
As long as it's not the dance.
Please God, not that...
It’s going to be the Alan Rickman effort where Starmer is dancing with Trump and Zelensky is standing at the back of the room stifling tears and anger.
Zelensky will sneak into Starmer’s coat and find the keys to an F35 and then Starmer will hand over an airfix model of a spitfire.
(Led to the rise in support for the far right would be a better way of phrasing it.)
And those are the kind of people on Bluesky
But you won't ever get this
Wouldn’t it be better to join Blue Sky and balance out the opinion instead of grumbling on the sidelines? Gove them some balance, good and hard.
I had a look - and I still have an account there
As a quiet tea shop to discuss architecture or lexicology or bioscience it is nice, funny, warm. Like Twitter was at its innocent best ten years ago. If you use it just for certain (not all) niche interests it's perfectly fine
As a place to debate politics and other hot issues it is worse than useless, it is dangerous. The lefties are gonna lock themselves away there and become even more bubbled and silo'd, and even more surprised by reality when it hits
No way I'm wasting my precious, lucrative prose on these Bluesky fools. I already waste it on enough fools, elsewhere
"Now, I don't *avoid* women, Mandrake, but I *do* deny them my essence!"
There is just a possibility that Starmer may have a "Love Actually" moment when he goes to the US shortly, where he makes clear that our relationship with the US is no longer as strong as it was, that this behaviour has consequences and you don't get to be leaders of the free world by having a completely self interested, transactional view of the world and allies.
I am not hugely optimistic but he should reflect on some of the polling in the header. It could do more for his popularity than anything he has done since coming to Downing Street (a low bar, admittedly). More importantly, someone needs to wake the Americans up from their thrall and it needs to be done in a way that is impossible to ignore.
The poster in the header is exactly where I am but it is Americans who need to do something about this.
Britain has chosen, from immediate self interest, to triangulate and try and act as a bridge between the US and Europe. I think in the immediate term Starmer has to keep up that facade, but I do not see this as a long term policy, and I think should only maintained until so long as we see Trump’s intentions, deliver the Ukrainian settlement, and have time to discuss and decide the way forwards with Europe.
Britain has been all-in on its relationship with the US since the second world war. Everything we do strategically is rooted in that relationship. Trump has broken it but you can't just switch it off. I don't think the UK has any realistic choice but to try and salvage what it can.
I'd say all-in since Suez.
We tried to go back to being an independent world power post WWII, and the independence of India, but we simply couldn't afford it and we no longer controlled the international financial and economic system.
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.
Onto my third cuppa but it's like there's a hole in my stomach and my body ain't absorbing the fluid.
Coffee doesn’t help - actually makes it worse. You need water. With sugar and a tiny bit of salt.
Isotonic sports drink, pretty much.
You can also make your own (salt, citric acid and a bit of sugar in water), or buy rehydration salts at the chemist in sachets.
Or have another drink.
He’s on a family holiday. Spoiling it for the little ones is poor form.
Eggs "Eggs contain two amino acids (Taurine and Cysteine) which help to fight the hangovers. Taurine has been shown to reverse the effect of alcohol damage on the liver by flushing out toxins quicker and Cysteine helps to break down acetaldehyde, which is a by-product of alcohol metabolism"
If taurine is needed, a couple of raw eggs whisked into a red bull... this isn't recommended though it would probably empty your stomach of any residual alcohol.
My concern is that the USA will actually join in on the side of Russia, in this war, in return for big economic concessions.
One would hope that Congress would finally stand up and be counted at that point…
Even if they did stand up (and not just to do the two-handed salute), is there a mechanism? This cabinet doesn't seem likely to press the 25th Amendment button.
Marco Rubio: “For years to come, there are many people on the right…that are going to be having to explain and justify how they fell into this trap of supporting Donald Trump because this is not going to end well.” (2016)
This is why I could never be a politician, or diplomat, or really any job where you have to keep your opinions to yourself. I wouldn't even be able to bite my tongue, I'd be saying "I warned you all. I was right all along!"
Marco Rubio: “For years to come, there are many people on the right…that are going to be having to explain and justify how they fell into this trap of supporting Donald Trump because this is not going to end well.” (2016)
This is why I could never be a politician, or diplomat, or really any job where you have to keep your opinions to yourself. I wouldn't even be able to bite my tongue, I'd be saying "I warned you all. I was right all along!"
My concern is that the USA will actually join in on the side of Russia, in this war, in return for big economic concessions.
One would hope that Congress would finally stand up and be counted at that point…
The US has spent most of the last 80 years demonising Russia, I doubt even Trump could manage a pivot to outright support without losing the US public.... that doubt isn't very strong though
My concern is that the USA will actually join in on the side of Russia, in this war, in return for big economic concessions.
One would hope that Congress would finally stand up and be counted at that point…
Who knows.
It's a bit like a huge nuclear powered Brexit. After 2016 a sensible deal could have been done on EFTA/EEA lines but only if moderates from all parties - overall the great majority - were prepared to act together and risk the wrath together.
All it takes (!) is congress unitedly to declare that Trump is wrong, Ukraine is basically in the right and Putin fundamentally in the wrong, NATO Europe is our best friend, and the edifice cracks.
He’s a shill paid by the left to advance “pro migration” causes
Which might well be good - or not - but the idea he is some “good connector” is insane. You guys are gonna end up locked in a room agreeing with each other until you end up gouging out your own tiny eyes with boredom
With foreign affairs at the top of the agenda is Priti Patel value at 22-1 for next Con leader? Badenoch looks unlikely to make a recovery and seems to be avoiding the issue of the day.
Onto my third cuppa but it's like there's a hole in my stomach and my body ain't absorbing the fluid.
You need the traditional full English. Works wonders.
How much (additional) sauce is up to you.
If you are going that road, you need a pint of Guinness with it. 6am at Smithfield market…
Smithfield is now shut. And along with it that entire unique pub culture
Not been the same since the sorting office closed in the 90s. The combination of the large sorting office, large hopsital, both working 24 hours, plus the early morning meat market made that corner of London unique.
My concern is that the USA will actually join in on the side of Russia, in this war, in return for big economic concessions.
One would hope that Congress would finally stand up and be counted at that point…
Even if they did stand up (and not just to do the two-handed salute), is there a mechanism? This cabinet doesn't seem likely to press the 25th Amendment button.
Onto my third cuppa but it's like there's a hole in my stomach and my body ain't absorbing the fluid.
You need the traditional full English. Works wonders.
How much (additional) sauce is up to you.
If you are going that road, you need a pint of Guinness with it. 6am at Smithfield market…
Smithfield is now shut. And along with it that entire unique pub culture
Not been the same since the sorting office closed in the 90s. The combination of the large sorting office, large hopsital, both working 24 hours, plus the early morning meat market made that corner of London unique.
True but Leon’s statement is wrong - Smithfield is still open until 2028 albeit slightly less busy than it used to be
He’s a shill paid by the left to advance “pro migration” causes
Which might well be good - or not - but the idea he is some “good connector” is insane. You guys are gonna end up locked in a room agreeing with each other until you end up gouging out your own tiny eyes with boredom
as opposed to a shill paid by the right to advance "anti-immigration" causes?
The world would be blissfully quiet if shills were silenced.
Day dreams briefly of a tranquil world where politicians could get on with competently governing without being constantly battered by shills operating in the interests of the very few and the general public could get on with enjoying life.
With foreign affairs at the top of the agenda is Priti Patel value at 22-1 for next Con leader? Badenoch looks unlikely to make a recovery and seems to be avoiding the issue of the day.
Last time I looked Penny wasn't even on BF list. She has military background??
Donald Trump on Air Force 1: “We had a rare earth deal, and Ukraine agreed to it, more or less.. ... And then Scott Besset actually went there and was treated rather rudely, because essentially they told him no. Zelenskyy was sleeping and unavailable to meet him (?) He traveled many hours on the train, which is a dangerous trip, and we're talking about the Secretary of the Treasury. He went there to get a document signed, and when he got there, he came back empty. They wouldn't sign the document. ... I think I'm going to resurrect the deal, or things are not going to make them too happy. And look, it's time for elections. Haven't had an election in a long time."
With foreign affairs at the top of the agenda is Priti Patel value at 22-1 for next Con leader? Badenoch looks unlikely to make a recovery and seems to be avoiding the issue of the day.
Last time I looked Penny wasn't even on BF list. She has military background??
With foreign affairs at the top of the agenda is Priti Patel value at 22-1 for next Con leader? Badenoch looks unlikely to make a recovery and seems to be avoiding the issue of the day.
Last time I looked Penny wasn't even on BF list. She has military background??
I think you have to be an MP, which would preclude her
With foreign affairs at the top of the agenda is Priti Patel value at 22-1 for next Con leader? Badenoch looks unlikely to make a recovery and seems to be avoiding the issue of the day.
Last time I looked Penny wasn't even on BF list. She has military background??
Penny hasn't a seat which I know isn't an absolute disqualification, but still pretty vital.
Smelling salts available for certain PBers at the mention of Penny's seat.
Donald Trump on Air Force 1: “We had a rare earth deal, and Ukraine agreed to it, more or less.. ... And then Scott Besset actually went there and was treated rather rudely, because essentially they told him no. Zelenskyy was sleeping and unavailable to meet him (?) He traveled many hours on the train, which is a dangerous trip, and we're talking about the Secretary of the Treasury. He went there to get a document signed, and when he got there, he came back empty. They wouldn't sign the document. ... I think I'm going to resurrect the deal, or things are not going to make them too happy. And look, it's time for elections. Haven't had an election in a long time."
Donald Trump on Air Force 1: “We had a rare earth deal, and Ukraine agreed to it, more or less.. ... And then Scott Besset actually went there and was treated rather rudely, because essentially they told him no. Zelenskyy was sleeping and unavailable to meet him (?) He traveled many hours on the train, which is a dangerous trip, and we're talking about the Secretary of the Treasury. He went there to get a document signed, and when he got there, he came back empty. They wouldn't sign the document. ... I think I'm going to resurrect the deal, or things are not going to make them too happy. And look, it's time for elections. Haven't had an election in a long time."
You're doing sterling service posting the ramblings of a madman, william.
Donald Trump on Air Force 1: “We had a rare earth deal, and Ukraine agreed to it, more or less.. ... And then Scott Besset actually went there and was treated rather rudely, because essentially they told him no. Zelenskyy was sleeping and unavailable to meet him (?) He traveled many hours on the train, which is a dangerous trip, and we're talking about the Secretary of the Treasury. He went there to get a document signed, and when he got there, he came back empty. They wouldn't sign the document. ... I think I'm going to resurrect the deal, or things are not going to make them too happy. And look, it's time for elections. Haven't had an election in a long time."
Hey Don, why is a train trip in Ukraine dangerous?
Discussions about the withdrawal of US troops from all NATO states that joined the alliance after 1990 are one of the goals of the talks between Russia and the US, an Eastern European security official tells BILD https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892267946673582196
With all the depressing news on Trump it was nice to watch something that warms the heart.
On BBC news this morning they had two of the people from 24 hours in A&E which I have never watched. It was lesson in not judging a book by its cover. The bloke that looked like a NZ forward was a Consultant trauma surgeon and the lady who looked like the gran from Little Red Ridding Hood was the sister. She was the sister in the first series and a patient in the second series having been knocked off her bike. She apparently swears like a trooper (she said here parents would be horrified) and while drugged to the eyeballs sang at the top of her voice. He commented that sometimes all a patient needs is a hug. If he hugged you, you would be back in A&E.
Onto my third cuppa but it's like there's a hole in my stomach and my body ain't absorbing the fluid.
You need the traditional full English. Works wonders.
How much (additional) sauce is up to you.
If you are going that road, you need a pint of Guinness with it. 6am at Smithfield market…
Smithfield is now shut. And along with it that entire unique pub culture
Not been the same since the sorting office closed in the 90s. The combination of the large sorting office, large hopsital, both working 24 hours, plus the early morning meat market made that corner of London unique.
True but Leon’s statement is wrong - Smithfield is still open until 2028 albeit slightly less busy than it used to be
A lot less busy. It’s a shadow of its former self and has been declining for many years. I used to cycle from my flat in Angel to the office in Westminster down St John’s Street and through the market. Wasn’t a proper day if I didn’t nearly crash into a frozen cow carcass and be shouted at by an incensed trader.
I later (‘08-‘12) worked off St John’s Street near the market and it was visibly declining in business.
Comments
I am not hugely optimistic but he should reflect on some of the polling in the header. It could do more for his popularity than anything he has done since coming to Downing Street (a low bar, admittedly). More importantly, someone needs to wake the Americans up from their thrall and it needs to be done in a way that is impossible to ignore.
The poster in the header is exactly where I am but it is Americans who need to do something about this.
And even that should rotate. Give each of several countries 6 months at a time. Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine....
Isotonic sports drink, pretty much.
You can also make your own (salt, citric acid and a bit of sugar in water), or buy rehydration salts at the chemist in sachets.
You have then lied about my comments and put words in my mouth.
You’re obviously one to ignore. I had thought you were better than that, but sadly not.
How much (additional) sauce is up to you.
As a pretext for invading a sovereign state, particularly in the context of Russia's prior aggressions, it's not even threadbare.
The assurance was that there would be no NATO troops on *former GDR territory while Soviet troops were still there*. That’s why the commitment could be made by Kohl and no one else.
At the time the promise was made the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union still existed - why on earth would the USSR ask for a commitment that NATO wasn’t going to station troops on Warsaw Pact territory? The idea was literally inconceivable to them because it presupposes that the USSR would lose all of Eastern Europe
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconceptions-debate-russia/myth-03-russia-was-promised-nato-would-not-enlarge
Never forget.
Troops overseas hits retention and means they spend their money there. Base closures in the US were (and are a big thing). Being able to hand out *new* bases would be an awesome political…. sweetie for the politicians involved.
Hence the Rumsfeld plan (not implemented because of 9//11) to bring lots of troops home. But station armies of equipment and ammunition around the world, in storage. You could fly the soldiers in within hours - the bit that would take weeks was the heavy logistics stuff.
Let the reader decide.
"Doge Dividend Checks".
President Trump signed an executive order on Wednesday aimed at eliminating a handful of federal advisory committees.
The order targets the Presidio Trust, the Inter-American Foundation, the United States African Development Foundation and the United States Institute of Peace – all of which have received federal funding.
...
"I hope that the court system is going to allow us to do what we have to do," Trump said, adding that he would always abide by a court’s ruling but will be prepared to appeal.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-signs-late-night-executive-order-abolishing-handful-federal-advisory-boards
As a quiet tea shop to discuss architecture or lexicology or bioscience it is nice, funny, warm. Like Twitter was at its innocent best ten years ago. If you use it just for certain (not all) niche interests it's perfectly fine
As a place to debate politics and other hot issues it is worse than useless, it is dangerous. The lefties are gonna lock themselves away there and become even more bubbled and silo'd, and even more surprised by reality when it hits
No way I'm wasting my precious, lucrative prose on these Bluesky fools. I already waste it on enough fools, elsewhere
You either capitulate, or (politely or otherwise) stand up to him.
But it's at least worth a try.
Answer: yes.
If we start lying out of convenience, or just to disagree with Leon how does that help us?
As long as it's not the dance.
Please God, not that...
https://xcancel.com/AngelicaOung/status/1890976518748467682#m
It's fucking people over for a short term gain that gives no more than a fleeting advantage.
Kissinger said that the US needs to avoid giving the impression that "while it might be dangerous to be an adversary of the United States, to be an ally is lethal."
Right now, Trump & Co. are teaching us that to be a US ally is lethal.
It's why Farage and Reform might get to rule Arslikan. But not the UK.
As are UK political tactics in the lead up to WW1 and WW2, especially before the USA came on board, and around their reluctance to learn from others.
If Chump is a dealmaker, and the USA continue to be as cynically indifferent about whether non-USA citizens live or die compared to US interests as they have been for the last 250 years, then they will happily sell us arms until we are an opponent, or they decide they need strong leverage - even if we start to pivot away from dependence.
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.
Wifey hoping it is somewhat better in the Berkshire/Oxfordshire borders later today, for the funeral of Marianne Faithfull.
It's an interment. We both realised neither of us have been to a proper burial for over forty year - all since have been cremations.
The important thing to watch is the NA subs of European banks. Will they trade with Russia (in which case sanctions are pointless) or will the EU enforce sanctions policy globally on anyone who wants to operate in Europe.
And will Trump say that anyone who sanctions Russia can’t trade in the US…
Musk I'm less sure about. Though the pace of change in tech might reward a certain kind of grabbing fleeting advantage while it's still there.
She is one of those people who sits in an office and gets angry about their MD and other bosses because she knows she is better than them if only she’s given the chance.
Unfortunately when given the chance and promoted she has no idea what direction the company needs to go in, no idea about how the company got successful in the first place and her knowledge is limited to the sector she worked in and not transferable.
Unfortunately they need to ditch asap, get a grey hair to hold the fort whilst they start finding quality somewhere behind the sofa who actually has some sort of vision for what the Tories are for so they can sell that to the voters.
Zelensky will sneak into Starmer’s coat and find the keys to an F35 and then Starmer will hand over an airfix model of a spitfire.
Then Joni Mitchell will play in the background.
Is she taking National Security briefings yet? (cf PMQ last week)
I'd like to see trends over time on the Reform numbers.
We tried to go back to being an independent world power post WWII, and the independence of India, but we simply couldn't afford it and we no longer controlled the international financial and economic system.
He's in the Starter Pack.
"Eggs contain two amino acids (Taurine and Cysteine) which help to fight the hangovers. Taurine has been shown to reverse the effect of alcohol damage on the liver by flushing out toxins quicker and Cysteine helps to break down acetaldehyde, which is a by-product of alcohol metabolism"
If taurine is needed, a couple of raw eggs whisked into a red bull...
this isn't recommended though it would probably empty your stomach of any residual alcohol.
Bloody hell, it makes more noise than Trump on being told he has a small dick.
Rubio is now also a bitch - Trump’s bitch.
All it takes (!) is congress unitedly to declare that Trump is wrong, Ukraine is basically in the right and Putin fundamentally in the wrong, NATO Europe is our best friend, and the edifice cracks.
The longer it is left, the harder it gets.
He’s a shill paid by the left to advance “pro migration” causes
Which might well be good - or not - but the idea he is some “good connector” is insane. You guys are gonna end up locked in a room agreeing with each other until you end up gouging out your own tiny eyes with boredom
Trump will give them a Tonkin either way.
Badenoch looks unlikely to make a recovery and seems to be avoiding the issue of the day.
https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-procedures/declarations-of-war.htm
There is a lot that the President can do without actually declaring war though
Just realised I’ve had one half overcast day and one morning of rain…. In seven weeks
Anyone who doesn’t spend the British winter in Indochina is a fool
YouTube's all-seeing algorithm brings us Bill Bailey playing the American national anthem in a minor key:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob5n_TzZjX4&t=309s
The world would be blissfully quiet if shills were silenced.
Day dreams briefly of a tranquil world where politicians could get on with competently governing without being constantly battered by shills operating in the interests of the very few and the general public could get on with enjoying life.
Donald Trump on Air Force 1: “We had a rare earth deal, and Ukraine agreed to it, more or less.. ... And then Scott Besset actually went there and was treated rather rudely, because essentially they told him no. Zelenskyy was sleeping and unavailable to meet him (?) He traveled many hours on the train, which is a dangerous trip, and we're talking about the Secretary of the Treasury. He went there to get a document signed, and when he got there, he came back empty. They wouldn't sign the document. ... I think I'm going to resurrect the deal, or things are not going to make them too happy. And look, it's time for elections. Haven't had an election in a long time."
Smelling salts available for certain PBers at the mention of Penny's seat.
Simply embarrassing yourself.
FTSE finance chief quits over error on his CV
Whenever he opens his mouth.
https://x.com/Faytuks/status/1892267946673582196
On BBC news this morning they had two of the people from 24 hours in A&E which I have never watched. It was lesson in not judging a book by its cover. The bloke that looked like a NZ forward was a Consultant trauma surgeon and the lady who looked like the gran from Little Red Ridding Hood was the sister. She was the sister in the first series and a patient in the second series having been knocked off her bike. She apparently swears like a trooper (she said here parents would be horrified) and while drugged to the eyeballs sang at the top of her voice. He commented that sometimes all a patient needs is a hug. If he hugged you, you would be back in A&E.
They were both lovely people.
I later (‘08-‘12) worked off St John’s Street near the market and it was visibly declining in business.
No words.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/hamas-hands-over-bodies-of-four-israeli-hostages-to-red-cross/ar-AA1zpUkM?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=69c8a84f2c6a4901a1e67cdc7b534e2a&ei=7