Document confirms US told Russia NATO won’t expand

[Flash]

it was a formal treaty not an executive agreement like say P5+1 agreement was just an executive agreement

A formal treaty ratified by the Senate? I can find no such treaty:

"Russia was a participant in these new security arrangements, and was keen to clarify that Nato enlargement was not a security threat to Russia. The then president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, wrote in a September 1993 letter to the then US president, Bill Clinton: “Any possible integration of east European countries into Nato will not automatically lead to the alliance somehow turning against Russia.” So it was being clearly signalled that Russia did not object to the direction Europe’s new security architecture was following. The three Visegrad countries were duly invited to join Nato at the 1997 Madrid Summit, joining in 1999. Slovakia was forced to wait until 2004."

 

[Walt]

Document confirms US told Russia NATO won’t expand

That was superseded in the late 1990's. Putin does not like the decision Yeltsin made, but it was made, and he needs to move on.

 

[Walt]

We knew this eons ago.

The West has no honor, and China knows.

It is amazing how open the alt right's hatred of America is. They sure do love Putin, though.

 

[Diesel]

Ah- infidels.



The Russians believe that the Federation inherited the legal stature of the Union- and I agree that it should. Still, if America's agreements aren't worth a toss then it hardly matters, does it. Sound the sirens.

Why are you so focused on the US? The US was one of six countries at a meeting, only four of which even belonged to NATO. The document that was "discovered" are the meeting minutes. 1991 was 31 years ago.

I can understand why Russia feels threatened by NATO, but it has an open door policy and considers new members when countries ask to join. That's the consequence for Russia of losing the Cold War and declining ever since then. Putin can invade Ukraine if he's that determined to throw a temper tantrum for being weaker than the alliance, but I don't imagine that ending well for him.

 

[moon]

Why are you so focused on the US?

I'm generally focused upon Israel as the greatest threat to civilization- but US insistence that it can encroach upon Russia with impunity puts it in the frame for the time being.

 

[moon]

A formal treaty ratified by the Senate? I can find no such treaty:

"Russia was a participant in these new security arrangements, and was keen to clarify that Nato enlargement was not a security threat to Russia. The then president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, wrote in a September 1993 letter to the then US president, Bill Clinton: “Any possible integration of east European countries into Nato will not automatically lead to the alliance somehow turning against Russia.” So it was being clearly signalled that Russia did not object to the direction Europe’s new security architecture was following. The three Visegrad countries were duly invited to join Nato at the 1997 Madrid Summit, joining in 1999. Slovakia was forced to wait until 2004."

A classic case of practical hypocrisy- the word of a US president may be trashed as idle chat but that of a Russian president is not.

 

[Diesel]

I'm generally focused upon Israel as the greatest threat to civilization- but US insistence that it can encroach upon Russia with impunity puts it in the frame for the time being.

I know you are. I also find your Israel obsession to be overblown, but we all have our passion projects.

And once again, why are you so unbalanced in your assessment of these meeting minutes? Did the US make any former Soviet satellites join NATO? Are not NATO and the US infinitely more powerful than Russia? Neither the US nor NATO have threatened Russian territory. Russia lost the Cold War and is weak. I personally see no value nor moral imperative for being mad at the US that Russia is threatening to invade Ukraine.

 

[Hawkeye10]

It is amazing how open the alt right's hatred of America is. They sure do love Putin, though.

Alt Right: Anyone who does not agree with the WOKE Regime.

 

[Diesel]

A classic case of practical hypocrisy- the word of a US president may be trashed as idle chat but that of a Russian president is not.

There was no US president at this meeting of a handful of countries more than three decades ago. American presidents are politicians and therefore generally not very good people, but are you seriously implying Russia is held to an unfair standard? That Russian presidents are somehow more trustworthy or honorable than American presidents?

 

[Walt]

Alt Right: Anyone who does not agree with the WOKE Regime.

I do not agree with a lot of people who I would not call alt right. We were just talking about Reagan. I did not agree with Reagan on many issues, but I cannot imagine him tolerating a swastika anywhere around him.

 

[Legion]

That was superseded in the late 1990's.

Who told you that?

 

[Hawkeye10]

I do not agree with a lot of people who I would not call alt right. We were just talking about Reagan. I did not agree with Reagan on many issues, but I cannot imagine him tolerating a swastika anywhere around him.

The term is now almost useless, yet more English ruined by abuse.

 

[Legion]

I do not agree with a lot of people who I would not call alt right.

I don't believe you.

 

[Legion]

Not really. I'd like to see the Russian side of the agreement. I'm sure they broke the rules

Did your Magic 8 Ball tell you that?

 

[Walt]

The term is now almost useless, yet more English ruined by abuse.

It is sad that the alt right has to run from a term they created for themselves. It is not a problem with the term, but a problem with the alt right's actions.

I like alt rock. Alt rock fans have never stormed the Capitol Building in an attempt to destroy our democracy. So we do not need to change that name, we can continue to call it alt rock. The problem is not "alt".

The swastika was used by many cultures as a religious symbol. There is nothing wrong with that. It was the Nazis' actions that made it a symbol of evil... Not the symbol alone.

 

[Hawkeye10]

It is sad that the alt right has to run from a term they created for themselves. It is not a problem with the term, but a problem with the alt right's actions.

I like alt rock. Alt rock fans have never stormed the Capitol Building in an attempt to destroy our democracy. So we do not need to change that name, we can continue to call it alt rock. The problem is not "alt".

The swastika was used by many cultures as a religious symbol. There is nothing wrong with that. It was the Nazis' actions that made it a symbol of evil... Not the symbol alone.

Throw the slurs racist and alt-right at me and I will take it as proof that I am headed in the right direction.

 

[Walt]

Who told you that?

We were all around when NATO was expanded in 1999, and 2004. I know you think everything is a lie... But we all saw it happen.

 

[Walt]

Throw the slurs racist and alt-right at me and I will take it as proof that I am headed in the right direction.

Why would "alt right" be a slur? Your movement is so bad, you consider being called part of it as a slur? That is a weak movement.

 

[Legion]

We were all around when NATO was expanded in 1999, and 2004. But we all saw it happen.

So you say.

 

[reagansghost]

The Soviet Union no longer exits.

maybe so but Putin is reconstructing it in front of our very eyes, much like Trump commits his various felonies in broad daylight. nice eh?.....and of course MAGA nation is either indifferent or out and out pro-Soviet