Putin, Things Just Got Real. #ChechensSideKyiv

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: Cutepants
a reply to: nugget1

tass.com...

Any firearm has the ability to fire depleted uranium .
Nothing special required other than the rounds in the proper caliber .

Could you read the whole article before you comment?

The information that one of the shells has the depleted uranium core was confirmed to TASS by military expert, Editor-in-Chief of the Arsenal of the Fatherland journal Viktor Murakhovsky. "It has the alloy of the depleted uranium and tungsten," he said, adding that the open sources mentioned it as "the Material B."

Such munitions are stored outside of the arsenals of military units in the Russian Army and are referred to the category of special stockpiles, he added.

Here's another Russian sites talking about DU development starting in the 1970's: link

I thought this would be common knowledge. It's like you guys have this compulsion to disagree with me about everything you can.

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Let's pretend to overlook the fact that the West(NATO) has been advancing their position towards Russia ever since the fall of the Berlin wall, something they explicitly said they wouldn't do

This only happened in your communist fantasies, not in reality. It bears repeating that no diplomat or politician has the right to make a secret deal like that with a foreign country. Maybe someone who grew up in the Soviet system and was ignorant of how things work in the West would have thought it was possible, but that's no excuse.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

By saying those countries could not of their own will choose their own foreign policies and choose which other countries they choose to enter into treaties and alliances with ...

I'm sure you're well informed, more than most, since you were more than just a casual observer in those days if I remember correctly.

During the presidency of Bill Clinton (1993–2001), the United States led an initiative to enlarge NATO membership gradually to include some of the former Soviet allies.

Brittanica.com

Here is an excerpt of a letter James Baker wrote on the 9th of February 1990:

In this regard, I mentioned that it was unrealistic to assume that a big, economically significant country like Germany could be neutral. And then I put the following question to him. Would you prefer to see a unified Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position?

11He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options, and would be discussing them soon “in a kind of seminar.” He then added: “Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.” (By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable.)

He was of course referring to Gorbachev in this letter written to Helmut Kohl

Link to complete letter by Baker


The following is an excerpt dating back to 5th of February 1997 when George Kennan posted these words in the New York Times:

[B]luntly stated…expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking … ”

Excerpt from 'A Fateful Error'


James Baker and George Kennan wasn't the only ones who shared this concern.

It was also echoed by Senator Edward Kennedy, Senator Sam Nunn and Thomas Friedman.



Then in 2017 according to declassified documents released that year:

the deal essentially was that the Soviets would allow German unification with the written “ironclad guarantees”, that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward”, in the words of James Baker.

National Security Archive


From the above link:

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

And then there's this sneaky turnaround only possible when one is corrupt and without honor:

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.”

But according to you my viewpoint is akin to 'advancing colonialism' coupled with 'a mentality straight out of the 19th century'.



So in my best post-colonial dialect I shall ask, my dearest F2d5thCavv2, wherever do you find these interesting talking points to present to me as some sort of didactic lecture?

a reply to: 19Bones79

this sneaky turnaround only possible when one is corrupt and without honor

I'm curious how you imagine all of this playing out in a supposedly honorable way. How would it actually go down?

What happens when Poland for example wants to join NATO, and congress votes yes? Is Baker going to pull some secret documents out of a safe be like "lol sorry! I made a deal with a country that no longer exists, you can't do that".

You call that honorable? You think that's NOT corrupt?

a reply to: 19Bones79

Excellent post Bones

a reply to: 19Bones79

According to multiple people involved, including Gorbachev, the expansion eastward that was talked about was during the unification process of Germany. Germany would unify, and no NATO troops would be involved in said unification. Only German troops would move eastward.

Western leaders never pledged not to enlarge NATO, a point that several analysts have demonstrated. Mark Kramer explored the question in detail in a 2009 article in The Washington Quarterly. He drew on declassified American, German and Soviet records to make his case and noted that, in discussions on German reunification in the two-plus-four format (the two Germanys plus the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France), the Soviets never raised the question of NATO enlargement other than how it might apply in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR).

What the Germans, Americans, British and French did agree to in 1990 was that there would be no deployment of non-German NATO forces on the territory of the former GDR. I was a deputy director on the State Department’s Soviet desk at the time, and that was certainly the point of Secretary James Baker’s discussions with Gorbachev and his foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze. In 1990, few gave the possibility of a broader NATO enlargement to the east any serious thought.

The agreement on not deploying foreign troops on the territory of the former GDR was incorporated in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, which was signed on September 12, 1990 by the foreign ministers of the two Germanys, the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France. Article 5 had three provisions:

Until Soviet forces had completed their withdrawal from the former GDR, only German territorial defense units not integrated into NATO would be deployed in that territory.
There would be no increase in the numbers of troops or equipment of U.S., British and French forces stationed in Berlin.
Once Soviet forces had withdrawn, German forces assigned to NATO could be deployed in the former GDR, but foreign forces and nuclear weapons systems would not be deployed there.

www.brookings.edu...

a reply to: Zaphod58

What was stated was no troops other than German would take up garrisons in the former East Germany. And that is what is happened.

That was the only formal agreements. What else was said were mere ideas that were never formally defined as any kind of international agreement.

Putin's propaganda machine has done a great job making people think otherwise.

Cheers

a reply to: Cutepants

Except there were no secret documents.

Nothing but concepts mentioned in informal discussions that count for nothing in international affairs. Something the Russian government understands as well as anybody else, but now finds convenient to fume and rage about.

Cheers

a reply to: 19Bones79

Again, those were only ideas briefly discussed and NEVER formalized as international agreements.

Think that is unimportant? Here is an experiment for you: Go to a bank (any bank) and tell them you want to establish an account, but with the caveat that no documents are signed or are to even exist.

You know as we all do that won't work. Anywhere.

Same applies regarding international agreements. Serious, meaningful agreements are put in writing.

Oh, and by the way, those discussions were made with personalities from a government that no longer existed in 1993, meaning those discussions were even more meaningless.

IOW Bones, Putin is full of it when he makes those claims about "NATO breaking agreements and advancing to the east". Yes, NATO got larger, but it would have never happened without the 100% willingness of the new countries that joined. They had their fill of Russia as "Big Brother" and wanted a new international orientation.

So, yeah: when somebody affirms Putin's bogus claims that agreements (that were never made other than a few comments that were never formalized with representatives of a government that collapsed soon thereafter ), that is tantamount to clamoring for the colonialization of the peoples situated between Germany and Russia. There is no honor in that, there is no high ground. It is just plain wrong.

Where did I get such thoughts from? Why, Bones, from you, of course. All I did was take the argument you advanced, and followed its logic and likely consequences to its very unpleasant conclusions.

Cheers

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for joining the conversation.

Based on the information I have put out, what does your gut tell you as opposed to the reply you posted?

If you were in the other camp, wouldn't eastward expansion be top of your list on the negotiation table?

To say that the Russians wouldn't have considered this seems to be for me too hard a pill to swallow as that would mean they were neglecting their own interests.

a reply to: 19Bones79

At the time the Soviet Union was dealing with a lot, and wasn’t expecting things to fall apart so rapidly. Expansion into East Germany wouldn’t really be an issue. If the Soviet Union held together, NATO wouldn’t expand any farther. There really wasn’t a need to discuss it, because no one really expected it to happen the way it did.

If anyone saw the collapse coming, then there would have been a discussion about it. I remember being surprised when the Berlin Wall came down, but was absolutely stunned at how fast the Soviet Union came apart. I remember no one at the time predicted it would happen that fast. There were several people that were predicting it was inevitable once they lost East Germany, but they were looking 5-10 years down the road, not as soon as Germany was reunified.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Again, those were only ideas briefly discussed and NEVER formalized as international agreements.

Gorbachev knew that the Soviet Union would fall.

Yeltsin was a drunk, infirm and unable leader who couldn't even restore order to his country, he was never going to address that 'ironclad guarantee' which you reduce to vague assurances which was never formally agreed upon.

And if I follow your reasoning, a formal agreement wouldn't have to be honored anyway after the Soviet Union collapsed as such, which is why understandably such an agreement in writing was not actively pursued at that stage because the US signalled willing intent to agree to no more expansion eastwards (eta) and it wouldn't have been honored anyway.

So how would it be taken forward?

At the very least the concern had to be addressed as so many spoke up of the dangers of eastward expansion, including some very notable American politicians as I have already shown.

Why did they take it seriously while you dumb it down to Putinescque propaganda?

To take that lightly is exactly the reason why we are where we are now. And when I say we, I mean the whole world.

The US under Clinton had a friendly relationship with Yeltsin until you decided to bomb Kosovo.

Yeltsin was never going to lead successfully, let alone tie his own shoes.


What worries me, is when intelligent members such as you reduce this to an open and shut case while adding an insult or two just for good measure.


Honestly it feels like an BAMN mindset to me at worst, and patriotic bias at best and if that's the case own it and at least I will accept where you're coming from.

But don't preemptively claim the moral high ground because it's a fact that America is the most warlike nation in the history of the world and not something to overlook especially when it came to the concern of further expansion eastward.

Think that is unimportant? Here is an experiment for you: Go to a bank (any bank) and tell them you want to establish an account, but with the caveat that no documents are signed or are to even exist.

Excellent example.


Let's say the bank agreed and gave you an account.

Shortly afterwards you are wrongfully declared dead on the system even though you are still very much alive.

You walk into the bank trying to access your account and the bank refuses to unfreeze your account even though they can clearly see that you are still the person that opened the account.


An agreement with Soviet leaders wouldn't have been honored after the fall of the Soviet Union.


Gorbachev knew that.

And so did James Baker.

Fun fact, if you took the 100+ billion that got sent to Ukraine and laundered back to the DNC via FTX while the rest was spent by ukrainian politicians on expensive houses and cars... that amount of money would cover the shortfall in social security in the US.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Do you believe that the US had no prior intel on the unsuccessful coup against Gorbachev in 1991?

Because it is widely accepted that that particular moment in time sealed the fate of the Soviet Union.

I remember being surprised when the Berlin Wall came down

While a surprise to most, the letter that James Baker wrote does indicate that Gorbachev already accepted that as a formality.


Then there's the issue of Senators warning that their worst fears could be confirmed if the US (NATO) decided to expand further east.


Yes, I'm going hard on America in this thread but it's because I want to feel good about the side I ultimately support,and I do support the US which is why I'm coming down very hard on this one because it's very difficult to live with.

originally posted by: 19Bones79
An agreement with Soviet leaders wouldn't have been honored after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Such an agreement would not and could not have been honored even if the Union never fell.

Let's say the bank agreed and gave you an account.

Shortly afterwards you are wrongfully declared dead on the system even though you are still very much alive.

You walk into the bank trying to access your account and the bank refuses to unfreeze your account even though they can clearly see that you are still the person that opened the account.

But it's not allowed to start a bank account in the name of another person, is it?

a reply to: 19Bones79

But there were NO agreements. Nothing formal, at least. That can't be evaded.

Putin wants people to think there were formal agreements ... with NATO. Both of those notions are not factual.

There were some ideas verbally expressed ... by a couple of people ... German, and, American ... who were NOT representing NATO in formal negotiations. Genscher could -say- whatever he wanted; like opening a bank account, his words meant little in an international environment in which -every- meaningful agreement is put in writing.

Why don't you try going hard on Russia and Putin for a while? If you actually dig into what happened, you'll find that not much happened at all in terms of formal agreements ... other than the one regarding the stationing of NATO troops in the former East Germany ... which, BTW, has been respected by NATO to the current day.

Anything else is just an end run to rob multiple countries of their sovereignty. IOW, make colonies out of them.

Check, Russia has feelz about how things changed after 1989. So do a whole bunch of people in countries between Germany and Russia.

Cheers

a reply to: BaconCrusader

kadyrov telegram

Translated most recent post:

Briefly about how the residents of Donbass meet fighters from the Chechen Republic! Akhmat is power! ALLAH1U AKBAR!

a reply to: 19Bones79

The thinking at the time was that Gorbachev would be able to hold things together at least a few more years. The concern was over who came after him. It was fairly certain it was Yeltsin, who was known to be weak, so plans were set up to try to help the transition to democracy over several years until Gorbachev slowly eased out of power. Then it all went sideways.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

Putin wants people to think there were formal agreements ... with NATO. Both of those notions are not factual.

If he can't produce those agreements he should stop talking out of his ass. That would be going about it the wrong way.

And right now both sides are going about it the wrong way but out of curiosity, how do you reckon Trump would put an end to this situation like he keeps saying he will?

Why don't you try going hard on Russia and Putin for a while?

Would the US allow a serious Russian military buildup in Canada, Mexico an Cuba if those countries were ok with it?

Be honest.

And what would your take be on such a hypothetical?

The balance has been lost.

I may be wrong but has Russia signaled any intent to advance further West before NATO arrived on their doorstep?

Russia could never have pulled that off successfully in my estimation and Putin must know that.

Strategically speaking that would have been a fatal mistake for Russia.

Which makes me believe he was made out to be a bigger boogeyman than he is capable of being.

Russia couldn't handle an all out war on multiple fronts and I think you know that as well.


With the way NATO is bungling through this balls up pretty soon China is going to have to join the fray on the side of Russia and then it will be an infinitely more difficult process to reach a diplomatic solution.

What then?

Send your sons and daughters to die?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I've made my position clear regardless of how we interpret the reality of the situation differently between both sides.

For me the bottom line remains the situation needs to cool down, and from your point of view that does not seem to be possible.

The whole world will suffer because of this unwillingness to reach a compromise and when the dust finally settles nobody is going to feel like they came out on top of it all, no one.


Is it really worth it to pursue this line in your estimation?