Chomsky: When Clinton Moved NATO Missiles Right Up to the Russian Border After Promising Not to, After Fall of Berlin Wall

[munkle]

Getting downright boring hearing the same old same old, Russia expansionist bad guys, Ukraine like Davy and Goliath good guys. It's way more complicated than that. Hopefully Chomsky will do for a source for the lefties who want to say anyone who says anything nice about Russia is just a right-wing, Trump-sucking, Putin-lover.

These Neocon nuts have brought us right to the brink of nuclear war. A neutral Ukraine is the way to go. We would never have a Warsaw Pact country on our border, why would be expect Putin to tolerate the equivalent?

Noam Chomsky, Dec. 23, 2021

"The broader context reaches back to the collapse of the Soviet Union 30 years ago. There were three contrasting visions of the global order that should be established in the wake of its collapse. All accepted that Germany would be unified and would join NATO — a remarkable concession by Russia, considering that Germany alone, not part of a hostile military alliance, had virtually destroyed Russia twice in the past century, a third time joining with the West (including the U.S.), in the “intervention” immediately after the Bolsheviks took power.

One proposal was Mikhail Gorbachev’s: a Eurasian security system from the Atlantic to Vladivostok, with no military blocs. The U.S. never considered that as an option. A second proposal was offered by George H.W. Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker, endorsed by West Germany: NATO would not move “one inch to the East,” meaning East Berlin; nothing beyond was contemplated, at least publicly. The third was Bill Clinton’s: NATO would move all the way to the Russian border, carry out military maneuvers in the states adjoining Russia, and place weapons on the Russian border that the U.S. would certainly regard as offensive weapons in the (inconceivable) event that it would even tolerate anything remotely comparable anywhere in its vicinity. It was the Clinton Doctrine that was implemented."

Noam Chomsky, Keeping Ukraine Neutral Offers Path to Peace.​

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Getting downright boring hearing the same old same old, Russia expansionist bad guys, Ukraine like Davy and Goliath good guys. It's way more complicated than that. Hopefully Chomsky will do for a source for the lefties who want to say anyone who says anything nice about Russia is just a right-wing, Trump-sucking, Putin-lover.

These Neocon nuts have brought us right to the brink of nuclear war. A neutral Ukraine is the way to go. We would never have a Warsaw Pact country on our border, why would be expect Putin to tolerate the equivalent?

Noam Chomsky, Dec. 23, 2021

"The broader context reaches back to the collapse of the Soviet Union 30 years ago. There were three contrasting visions of the global order that should be established in the wake of its collapse. All accepted that Germany would be unified and would join NATO — a remarkable concession by Russia, considering that Germany alone, not part of a hostile military alliance, had virtually destroyed Russia twice in the past century, a third time joining with the West (including the U.S.), in the “intervention” immediately after the Bolsheviks took power.

One proposal was Mikhail Gorbachev’s: a Eurasian security system from the Atlantic to Vladivostok, with no military blocs. The U.S. never considered that as an option. A second proposal was offered by George H.W. Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker, endorsed by West Germany: NATO would not move “one inch to the East,” meaning East Berlin; nothing beyond was contemplated, at least publicly. The third was Bill Clinton’s: NATO would move all the way to the Russian border, carry out military maneuvers in the states adjoining Russia, and place weapons on the Russian border that the U.S. would certainly regard as offensive weapons in the (inconceivable) event that it would even tolerate anything remotely comparable anywhere in its vicinity. It was the Clinton Doctrine that was implemented."

Noam Chomsky, Keeping Ukraine Neutral Offers Path to Peace.​

In the documents finalizing that agreement there was no language at all preventing the former Soviet Republics joining NATO.

There were all sorts of offers and proposals made but the only one that matters in the end are the terms both parties agreed to. Gorbachev only started squalling about it a decade later as he neared his end and was trying to rebuilt some legacy before departing the planet.

Both teams had huge contingents of international lawyers pouring over every word, phrase, and punctuation point in the agreements so they knew full well what was agreed to and signed.

 

[munkle]

In the documents finalizing that agreement there was no language at all preventing the former Soviet Republics joining NATO.

There were all sorts of offers and proposals made but the only one that matters in the end are the terms both parties agreed to. Gorbachev only started squalling about it a decade later as he neared his end and was trying to rebuilt some legacy before departing the planet.

Both teams had huge contingents of international lawyers pouring over every word, phrase, and punctuation point in the agreements so they knew full well what was agreed to and signed.

Promises Made, Promises Broken? What Yeltsin Was Told About NATO in 1993 and Why It Matters - War on the Rocks

Editor’s Note: This week, War on the Rocks is featuring some old favorites from the archives. This article was originally published in 2016. Surely

warontherocks.com

"On January 31, 1990, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher declared, “What NATO must do is state unequivocally that whatever happens in the Warsaw Pact, there will be no expansion of NATO territory eastwards, that is to say, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union.” In February, Baker then told Gorbachev in Moscow that “there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Gorbachev then stated “any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable.” Baker replied, “I agree.”"

The words of the negotiations are clear and on record. So you are saying the Russians' mistake was taking men at their word, and not getting it in writing, like some damned lawyer would say. Pretty piss poor reason to have a nuclear war.

 

[gipper]

NATO should have been scrapped after the fall of the USSR. Now we’re in this terrible predicament because of it.

 

[kyzr]

NATO should have been scrapped after the fall of the USSR. Now we’re in this terrible predicament because of it.

What terrible predicament?
Putin proved he's a "paper tiger" with nukes, that he knows he can't use.
Let's see Ukraine play out, the Ruble is worthless, Russia's economy is a shambles, and the world sees that the Russian army and air force sucks. If Ukraine holds to the end of March Russia will have a spent military and have to negotiate for what they can get. Which will be GTF out of Ukraine.

 

[Anomalism]

What terrible predicament?
Putin proved he's a "paper tiger" with nukes, that he knows he can't use.
Let's see Ukraine play out, the Ruble is worthless, Russia's economy is a shambles, and the world sees that the Russian army and air force sucks. If Ukraine holds to the end of March Russia will have a spent military and have to negotiate for what they can get. Which will be GTF out of Ukraine.

By European standards Ukraine has quite a formidable military. I wasn't surprised by their resistance.

 

[kyzr]

By European standards Ukraine has quite a formidable military. I wasn't surprised by their resistance.

You're ahead of the curve.
The US military talking heads predicted that the Russians would capture Ukraine in 3-days.
The Pentagon can't figure out why the Ukraine air force still has 60 MIGs flying.
Now the Pentagon is saying that if Ukraine can hold out to the end of March the Russian military will be spent.
We'll see...

 

[Turtlesoup]

What terrible predicament?
Putin proved he's a "paper tiger" with nukes, that he knows he can't use.
Let's see Ukraine play out, the Ruble is worthless, Russia's economy is a shambles, and the world sees that the Russian army and air force sucks. If Ukraine holds to the end of March Russia will have a spent military and have to negotiate for what they can get. Which will be GTF out of Ukraine.

At this point, when PUTIN leaves ukraine (assuming PUtin is killed off and replaced) he will blow up the nuke energy plants....the fallout from this will not end quickly. He pyshcopath---he wants to punish us.

 

[22lcidw]

Even if Putin is dethroned do people really believe that Russia will become a sudden minor player? Because if it does there is a lot of land to be carve out on their territory. Parts of Siberia will be up for grabs in a weakened nation with China knocking on the door.

 

[Dragonlady]

Getting downright boring hearing the same old same old, Russia expansionist bad guys, Ukraine like Davy and Goliath good guys. It's way more complicated than that. Hopefully Chomsky will do for a source for the lefties who want to say anyone who says anything nice about Russia is just a right-wing, Trump-sucking, Putin-lover.

These Neocon nuts have brought us right to the brink of nuclear war. A neutral Ukraine is the way to go. We would never have a Warsaw Pact country on our border, why would be expect Putin to tolerate the equivalent?

Noam Chomsky, Dec. 23, 2021

"The broader context reaches back to the collapse of the Soviet Union 30 years ago. There were three contrasting visions of the global order that should be established in the wake of its collapse. All accepted that Germany would be unified and would join NATO — a remarkable concession by Russia, considering that Germany alone, not part of a hostile military alliance, had virtually destroyed Russia twice in the past century, a third time joining with the West (including the U.S.), in the “intervention” immediately after the Bolsheviks took power.

One proposal was Mikhail Gorbachev’s: a Eurasian security system from the Atlantic to Vladivostok, with no military blocs. The U.S. never considered that as an option. A second proposal was offered by George H.W. Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker, endorsed by West Germany: NATO would not move “one inch to the East,” meaning East Berlin; nothing beyond was contemplated, at least publicly. The third was Bill Clinton’s: NATO would move all the way to the Russian border, carry out military maneuvers in the states adjoining Russia, and place weapons on the Russian border that the U.S. would certainly regard as offensive weapons in the (inconceivable) event that it would even tolerate anything remotely comparable anywhere in its vicinity. It was the Clinton Doctrine that was implemented."

Noam Chomsky, Keeping Ukraine Neutral Offers Path to Peace.​

Who the fuck cares what Noam Chomsky wants???? You Russian trolls can go fuck yourselves.

 

[gipper]

What terrible predicament?
Putin proved he's a "paper tiger" with nukes, that he knows he can't use.
Let's see Ukraine play out, the Ruble is worthless, Russia's economy is a shambles, and the world sees that the Russian army and air force sucks. If Ukraine holds to the end of March Russia will have a spent military and have to negotiate for what they can get. Which will be GTF out of Ukraine.

Yeah playing nuclear brinkmanship with what you call a madman, is fun.

 

[georgephillip]

Getting downright boring hearing the same old same old, Russia expansionist bad guys, Ukraine like Davy and Goliath good guys. It's way more complicated than that. Hopefully Chomsky will do for a source for the lefties who want to say anyone who says anything nice about Russia is just a right-wing, Trump-sucking, Putin-lover.

These Neocon nuts have brought us right to the brink of nuclear war. A neutral Ukraine is the way to go. We would never have a Warsaw Pact country on our border, why would be expect Putin to tolerate the equivalent?

Noam Chomsky, Dec. 23, 2021

"The broader context reaches back to the collapse of the Soviet Union 30 years ago. There were three contrasting visions of the global order that should be established in the wake of its collapse. All accepted that Germany would be unified and would join NATO — a remarkable concession by Russia, considering that Germany alone, not part of a hostile military alliance, had virtually destroyed Russia twice in the past century, a third time joining with the West (including the U.S.), in the “intervention” immediately after the Bolsheviks took power.

One proposal was Mikhail Gorbachev’s: a Eurasian security system from the Atlantic to Vladivostok, with no military blocs. The U.S. never considered that as an option. A second proposal was offered by George H.W. Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker, endorsed by West Germany: NATO would not move “one inch to the East,” meaning East Berlin; nothing beyond was contemplated, at least publicly. The third was Bill Clinton’s: NATO would move all the way to the Russian border, carry out military maneuvers in the states adjoining Russia, and place weapons on the Russian border that the U.S. would certainly regard as offensive weapons in the (inconceivable) event that it would even tolerate anything remotely comparable anywhere in its vicinity. It was the Clinton Doctrine that was implemented."

Noam Chomsky, Keeping Ukraine Neutral Offers Path to Peace.​

Your link:

"In thinking about the acutely dangerous current situation, it’s useful to bear in mind the founding of NATO and the 'alleged threat.'

"There’s a good deal to say about that topic, specifically about how the Russian threat was actually perceived by planners.

"Inquiry shows that it was quite different from the fevered rhetoric employed 'to scare the hell out of the country' in a manner 'clearer than truth' (Sen. Arthur Vandenberg and Dean Acheson, respectively).

"It is well-known that the influential planner George Kennan considered the Russian threat to be political and ideological, not military.

"He was, in fact, sent out to pasture early on for failure to join in the largely manufactured panic.

"Still, it’s always instructive to see how the world is perceived at the dovish extreme."

The "largely manufactured panic" is still on full display some 75 years later and shows no sign of ebbing even at the risk of nuclear war.

 

[bendog]

Your link:

"In thinking about the acutely dangerous current situation, it’s useful to bear in mind the founding of NATO and the 'alleged threat.'

"There’s a good deal to say about that topic, specifically about how the Russian threat was actually perceived by planners.

"Inquiry shows that it was quite different from the fevered rhetoric employed 'to scare the hell out of the country' in a manner 'clearer than truth' (Sen. Arthur Vandenberg and Dean Acheson, respectively).

"It is well-known that the influential planner George Kennan considered the Russian threat to be political and ideological, not military.

"He was, in fact, sent out to pasture early on for failure to join in the largely manufactured panic.

"Still, it’s always instructive to see how the world is perceived at the dovish extreme."

The "largely manufactured panic" is still on full display some 75 years later and shows no sign of ebbing even at the risk of nuclear war.

who'd possibly think russia would use military force to coearce former puppet states to rejoin the empire.

 

[bendog]

Sarcasm aside, this thread is really piss poor propaganda. After the Soviet's fall, most of the world hoped for peaceful co-existence, but once Putin got a spot, he invaded chechneya (after possibly engineering a false flag operation and killing his own citizens) and annexing land in Georgia and Moldova. Before THAT there was no consensus in the US or Nato as to expansion. The EU was not suitable for allowing the former "republics" to choose aligning their economies to free markets because RUSSIA REVERTED TO INVADING COUNTRIES

Even then, with Bill Clinton expansion was not a done deal, and it was opposed by a bipartisan group including Sam Nunn who was the closet the dems had to a Hawk. Even then, Clinton pulled back from deploying anti missle systems in the former "republics" that started with Reagan's "missle shield.'

Belgium, the Netherlands, and esp Germany have for decades opposed more military spending. It's not in any country's interest to spend money on arms and troops that hopeufully (unless you're leader's Putin) wants to use them. Food, healthcare, schools ... tend to be more popular IN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICS, which Russia is NOT. You can't kill journalists and political opponents and have free elections.

Visegrád Group[edit]​

NATO added the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland at the 1999 Washington summit, and established the protocol for Membership Action Plans.
In February 1991, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia formed the Visegrád Group to push for European integration under the European Union and NATO, as well as to conduct military reforms in line with NATO standards. Internal NATO reaction to these former Warsaw Pact countries was initially negative, but by the 1991 Rome summit in November, members agreed to a series of goals that could lead to accession, such as market and democratic liberalization, and that NATO should be a partner in these efforts. In subsequent years, wider forums for regional cooperation between NATO and its eastern neighbors were set up, including the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (later the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council) and the Partnership for Peace.[26]

Russian military actions, including the First Chechen War, Transnistria War, and War in Abkhazia, were among the factors driving Central and Eastern European countries, particularly those with memories of similar Soviet offensives, to push for NATO application and ensure their long-term security.[27][28] Political parties reluctant to move on NATO membership were voted out of office, including the Bulgarian Socialist Party in 1996 and Slovak HZDS in 1998.[29] Hungary's interest in joining was confirmed by a November 1997 referendum that returned 85.3% in favor of membership.[30]

While the other Visegrád members were invited to join NATO at its 1997 Madrid summit, Slovakia was excluded based on what several members considered undemocratic actions by nationalist Prime Minister Vladimír Mečiar.[31] Romania and Slovenia were both considered for invitation in 1997, and each had the backing of a prominent NATO member, France and Italy respectively, but support for this enlargement was not unanimous, particularly in the US Congress.[32] In an open letter to US President Bill Clinton, more than forty foreign policy experts including Bill Bradley, Sam Nunn, Gary Hart, Paul Nitze, and Robert McNamara expressed their concerns about NATO expansion as both expensive and unnecessary given the lack of an external threat from Russia at that time.[33]

Enlargement of NATO - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Likkmee]

Getting downright boring hearing the same old same old, Russia expansionist bad guys, Ukraine like Davy and Goliath good guys. It's way more complicated than that. Hopefully Chomsky will do for a source for the lefties who want to say anyone who says anything nice about Russia is just a right-wing, Trump-sucking, Putin-lover.

These Neocon nuts have brought us right to the brink of nuclear war. A neutral Ukraine is the way to go. We would never have a Warsaw Pact country on our border, why would be expect Putin to tolerate the equivalent?

Noam Chomsky, Dec. 23, 2021

"The broader context reaches back to the collapse of the Soviet Union 30 years ago. There were three contrasting visions of the global order that should be established in the wake of its collapse. All accepted that Germany would be unified and would join NATO — a remarkable concession by Russia, considering that Germany alone, not part of a hostile military alliance, had virtually destroyed Russia twice in the past century, a third time joining with the West (including the U.S.), in the “intervention” immediately after the Bolsheviks took power.

One proposal was Mikhail Gorbachev’s: a Eurasian security system from the Atlantic to Vladivostok, with no military blocs. The U.S. never considered that as an option. A second proposal was offered by George H.W. Bush and his Secretary of State James Baker, endorsed by West Germany: NATO would not move “one inch to the East,” meaning East Berlin; nothing beyond was contemplated, at least publicly. The third was Bill Clinton’s: NATO would move all the way to the Russian border, carry out military maneuvers in the states adjoining Russia, and place weapons on the Russian border that the U.S. would certainly regard as offensive weapons in the (inconceivable) event that it would even tolerate anything remotely comparable anywhere in its vicinity. It was the Clinton Doctrine that was implemented."

Noam Chomsky, Keeping Ukraine Neutral Offers Path to Peace.​

 

[francoHFW]

Promises Made, Promises Broken? What Yeltsin Was Told About NATO in 1993 and Why It Matters - War on the Rocks

Editor’s Note: This week, War on the Rocks is featuring some old favorites from the archives. This article was originally published in 2016. Surely

warontherocks.com

"On January 31, 1990, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher declared, “What NATO must do is state unequivocally that whatever happens in the Warsaw Pact, there will be no expansion of NATO territory eastwards, that is to say, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union.” In February, Baker then told Gorbachev in Moscow that “there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Gorbachev then stated “any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable.” Baker replied, “I agree.”"

The words of the negotiations are clear and on record. So you are saying the Russians' mistake was taking men at their word, and not getting it in writing, like some damned lawyer would say. Pretty piss poor reason to have a nuclear war.

Yup, the GOP screwed it all up. As always...

 

[gipper]

who'd possibly think russia would use military force to coearce former puppet states to rejoin the empire.

Your being sarcastic right?

 

[munkle]

NATO should have been scrapped after the fall of the USSR. Now we’re in this terrible predicament because of it.

^^^ This. But the Neocons were just getting started. Isn't it interesting that Victoria Nuland is married to Project for a New American Century founder, 9/11 criminal Robert Kagan?

 

[gipper]

^^^ This. But the Neocons were just getting started. Isn't it interesting that Victoria Nuland is married to Project for a New American Century founder, 9/11 criminal Robert Kagan?

Nothing is more bipartisan than war. This is because the MIC controls both parties.

 

[georgephillip]

who'd possibly think russia would use military force to coearce former puppet states to rejoin the empire.

Those who recognize the border between Russia and Ukraine is a relatively small part of a much larger rivalry between the US and Europe on one side and Russia on the other might suspect American support for neo-Nazis in Mariupol drives more of Putin's planning than any intention of rebuilding Imperial Russia.

who'd possibly think russia would use military force to coearce former puppet states to rejoin the empire

Anyone who remembers how a democratically elected president was removed from power by a US supported coup in 2014 might understand Putin's desire to protect his own borders by expelling Nazis from Mariupol, for example:

Chomsky: Outdated US Cold War Policy Worsens Ongoing Russia-Ukraine Conflict

"What happened in 2014, whatever one thinks of it, amounted to a coup with U.S. support that replaced the Russia-oriented government by a Western-oriented one.

"That led Russia to annex Crimea, mainly to protect its sole warm water port and naval base, and apparently with the agreement of a considerable majority of the Crimean population.

"There’s extensive scholarship on the complexities, particularly Richard Sakwa’s Frontline Ukraine and more recent work."