chrysler

There was never any agreement, because a suggestion of even such agreement is anachronistic garbage.

I'll let Soviet foreign minister Shevardnadze explain it:

>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: In February 1990, Germany's foreign minister at the time, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, assured you that "NATO will not expand to the east," and that states like Poland and Hungary could never be part of the military alliance. Because the conversion had revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher even became more explicit, saying that: "As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general." According to reports, you replied that you believed everything he said. So why didn't you get this commitment from NATO on paper?

>> Shevardnadze: Times have changed. At the time we couldn't believe that the Warsaw Pact could be dissolved. It was beyond our realm of comprehension. None of the participating countries had doubts about the Warsaw Pact. And the three Baltic states, which are now part of NATO, were still part of the Soviet Union then. Eventually, we agreed that a united Germany could be part of NATO under certain conditions. For example, a national army limited to 370,000 members and Germany waives the right to nuclear weapons. An expansion of NATO beyond Germany's borders was out of the question.

>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: At the end of March 1990, Genscher and the then US Secretary of State James Baker, talked about the fact that there was interest among "central European states" about getting into NATO. You knew nothing of this?

>> Shevardnadze: This is the first I've heard of it.

>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Did you have a conversation with your colleagues in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary about a possible eastward expansion of NATO in the spring of 1990?

>> Shevardnadze: No, that was never discussed in my presence.

>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: The German documents give the impression that Moscow counted on the dissolution of both the Warsaw Pact and NATO. Did you really think that would happen?

>> Shevardnadze: That may have been discussed after I resigned from the ministry of foreign affairs in December 1990. However during my time in office it was not.

>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: In May 1990, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev brought up the subject of the Soviet Union joining NATO during talks with the Americans. The Americans took that very seriously.

>> Shevardnadze: Gorbachev had that idea but he never took any realistic steps towards achieving this. Which is why it was never really discussed amongst the Soviet leaders.

>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Was the eastward expansion of NATO ever discussed in the inner circles of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1990?

>> Shevardnadze: The question never came up.

>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Did the subject play a role in the ratification process of the Two-Plus-Four agreement (where the signatories included the two Germanys and the four powers that occupied Germany after World War II) that unified Germany?

>> Shevardnadze: No, there were no difficulties whatsoever with the ratification process.

>> SPIEGEL ONLINE: Nevertheless, the eastward expansion happened a few years later. Did you feel, at the time, that the German diplomats deceived you?

>> Shevardnadze: No. When I was the minister of foreign affairs in the Soviet Union, NATO's expansion beyond the German borders never came up for negotiation. To this day I don't see anything terrible in NATO's expansion.

In Eastern Europe, those metaphors sound like "the final solution to the Jewish problem" sounds to western audiences.

I mean, just look at it:

>> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome.

Adjusted for the sensitivities of western audiences:

>> Germany is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1918, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome.

The subtext is abundantly clear.

It's not, if you consider his bio. He had a delusion that he could reform the USSR, make republics sign a new union treaty and maintain Russian dominance over Eastern Europe. Russia - leader, others - serfs who have only as much freedom as Moscow allows.

Instead, Eastern Europe ditched the Russian empire of misery on the first opportunity and never looked back, and that's what he was so bitter about. He hoped that the West would prop up his crumbling colonial empire.

When it comes to any clear assurances, even Gorbachev says NO. Is there anyone from the Soviet side who has actually confirmed it or is it pure western self-flaggelation?

>> Who’s next? Bush Sr.?

Let's see what Soviet foreign minister Shevardnadze had to say: https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e...

Denies that the subject even came up with Western representatives, Warsaw Pact leaders or Communist Party leadership. As he points out, nobody foresaw collapse of Warsaw Pact, so there was simply no reason to discuss anything like it. That would've made as much sense as discussing in 1999 what to build on World Trade Center grounds. Nobody knew that the WTC area would become a pile of rubble in two years' time.

>> Are you seriously suggesting Russia is responsible for more death and destruction around the world than the US?

Yes, without any question. WWII alone is responsible for tens of millions of deaths. USSR enabled Germany by dividing Europe with them in Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which was followed by joint invasion of Poland weeks later, war against Finland, occupation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, massacres like Katyn on the newly occupied territories, and eventually the war between themselves. USSR supplied hundreds of thousands of tons of all kinds of raw materials (oil, iron, grains, etc) between 1940 and 1941 to support German war effort in the West. 2/3 of all imported goods to Germany in 1940 and 1941 came from the USSR. Oil train after oil train went to Germany while Luftwaffe was bombing London.

Not to mention what went on 1941-1945... There's a book by Russian war reporter who recorded atrocities committed in Prussia. One scene had small groups of Russian soldiers and officers across a field as far as the eye can see, all with their pants down, waiting for their turn to rape German women who they had found in a refugee convoy. Houses in "liberated" towns were full of naked women dead in blood-soaked beds, sexual organs destroyed from non-stop raping. In total, several million women were raped in state-sanctioned violence against German civilians in the closing months of WWII. They raped even "liberated" concentration camp prisoners.

But if that's too old for you and you want more modern examples, read a few books on the Soviet-Afghan war in 1980s or the Chechen wars in 1990s, preferrably translations of works by independent Russian authors like Anna Politkovskaya and Svetlana Alexievich. You will find similar unmatched brutality.

Believing that the actions of US government come even close are... naive.

>> Yep, this is typical of Westerners. We know you Russians are dumb and don't appreciate our "great democracy". Yeah, we had a taste of it in the 1990s. USA came and destroyed the country, economy, jobs, the future. CIA "advisors" with their "shock therapy" destroyed economy overnight, put dumb drunkard Yeltsin in power, and stole everything valuable they could get a hold of.

>> People here were dying of hunger, but West was extremely happy with the "democracy" they built here.

Please spare me of this pathetic loser mentality that blames all of your failures on someone else. The CIA did not force upon you Stalin and the murder of millions home and abroad, nor did the CIA choose you Brezhnev and stagnation in all walks of life, nor did the CIA lock up in psychiatric hospitals the people trying to change the system.

It was your own making that by the end of 1980s, the costly war in Afghanistan, industrial accidents like Chernobyl, and stagnation along with hopeless attempts to reboot the rotting economy pushed USSR on the verge of starvation. As to the west, have you forgotten grain ships that provided much needed food aid that prevented the worst?

Beyond that, nobody in the west really cares or ever cared what went on in Russia. Russian obsession with the US and the vast conspiracy theories are merely a manifestation of your inferiority complex. You may think of yourself as the Third Rome and a superpower, but the size of your economy does not support the delusion; you're just a bunch of losers who inherited nukes.

The rest of your comment is a bitter vatnik blab that doesn't deserve a reply. You may blame the CIA, Ukrainian-Jewish cryptonazis, etc all you want, but unless you get rid of this loser mentality and blame game, face your past crimes like Germans have and seek reconciliation with your victims, develop a free society that respects human rights, establish mutually beneficial relations with neighbors, and start participating in the global economy in a constructive manner like the rest, you'll never live even remotely as well as people in the west do. That's a cold hard fact that you can not bypass with rhetorics, propaganda, misdirections and lies.

Cynicism of Russian population - of which you are a perfect specimen - is perhaps the biggest obstacle to development in Russia. It leads to grassroot-level inability to take responsibility and cooperate in things like HOAs, and poisons the whole society as it leaks upstream to local governments, federal government, business culture, etc. Once you've poisoned everything and have a failed state on your hands, you blame the CIA.

If you dropped cynicism, stopped mocking """""democracy""""", took responsibility and actually tried to work with each other in the name of common good, perhaps you wouldn't be such a shithole and would see the same fast development as everyone else who have taken this path have since 1991? Perhaps there would not be a need for daily terror attacks against Ukrainian cities to salvage the image of your god-emperor in that world?

>> What is a trusted source? How can I find one? I think this is close to impossible. Of course, everyone reads what one consider "trusted" source, but I have doubt any of them is.

Sounds like you have become a perfect specimen of Putinist Russia: trusting no-one, doubting everything, doing nothing.

>> So, my relatives from Ukraine were always telling me completely different stories from official Western stories. E.g. about neo-nazi movement in Ukraine which became very active since 1991 according to my relatives.

Have you tried quantifying it? For example, when someone from that part of political spectrum participated in elections, how well did they do? Did the "very active movement" ever reach even 1% of support?

>> While I cannot pinpoint an outright lie, because there're tons of results and I don't have much time now, you can easily see that there's a common theme in all the news articles: "Russia is bad", "Situation in Russia is awful", "Some unnamed source confirms that Putin is bad/afraid/eats babies for breakfast".

Why would you expect to see much positive coverage? When you google Nazi Germany, the first results aren't innovations in TV transmission nor advancements in wildlife protection either. Should they be? Is that the main contribution of Germany to the world between 1933 and 1945?

>> The USA would not tolerate China in their "sphere of influence". Krushchev and Cuba learned that.

1. Nobody takes "spheres of influence" seriously in modern day. It's a 19th century simplification that divides countries into empires and colonies. It doesn't really describe the complexity of modern day international relations where even very small countries like Iceland can have disproportional impact.

2. China is building a military base in Cuba, and yet you are probably not even aware of that, because again, the world is a little bit more complex than what you've become to believe and officials operate with more than just a phone line to bomber command.

>> only once people see both entities as bad a proper thesis about a better more just world can be made.

You're putting a loser mentality on full display. As much as cynical smartass Russians like to mock "fat stupid Americans", in the end of the day it comes down to what kind of life do governments provide for their citizens. Americans live far longer, healthier, happier, more peaceful and more prosperous lives than you do. They have allies all over the world who willingly engage in commerce, cultural exchange, political and military cooperation, and many other things without coersion because of the mutual benefits it brings.

Russia is a cargo cult version of this. Tries to imitate American influence in the world, but fails, because Russians bring very little of any value to the this world. Mostly things that are in the ground anyway, and not products of their ingenuity and determined work.

No, you are not equals. America is a vast incredibly rich empire, but you're just a gas station with nukes. No amount of whataboutism changes the simple fact that everyone envies the Americans and sees you as losers.

If you want Americans to run your country and be responsible for everything that happens there, then start by flying Stars and Stripes over the Kremlin.

>> Official "invitations" to the first round countries (PL, CZ, SK, HU) were issued around 1997 -- but that's the last step in the process.

Not the last step at all. In July 1997, NATO invited Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary to accession talks, to be correct. Talks began in September and took until 1999 to conclude. Full membership was achieved only in March 1999. Invitation to accession talks is by no means a formality or a last step.

>> Anyway by 1993 talk of these countries joining NATO was already all over the news (NYT: "Yeltsin 'Understands' Polish Bid for a Role in NATO").

... and that was considered as far-fetched as Ukraine's ambitions towards EU and NATO membership were in 2021. Something that everyone politely nodded to, but very few believed would happen in any meaningful timeframe. Russian army was still in Poland in 1993. Poland was in a socio-economic disaster then. Energy crisis, insane inflation and organized crime, inability to even pay government employees' wages, let alone participate in international organizations as an equal. NATO membership and American nuclear umbrella were mythical dreams at that time, often ridiculed in the press, as you will discover if you dig deeper into old newspapers. The tone changed during accession talks when it began to look like entry into NATO was really going to happen.

>> The Founding Act itself it pretty long-winded, but I'm not seeing any text that "greenlights" NATO expansion (other than by simply not mentioning the topic).

From the treaty: "To achieve the aims of this Act, NATO and Russia will base their relations on a shared commitment to the following principles: /.../ respect for sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all states and their inherent right to choose the means to ensure their own security, the inviolability of borders and peoples' right of self-determination as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and other OSCE documents;"

NATO established this clear understanding with Russia in writing before anyone was invited to accession talks.

>> But across the board -- I'm just finding your thinking to be rather muddled, and that you're just not seeing the forest for the trees (in addition to getting a lot of the "trees" themselves wrong).

The only ones trying to muddy things are those who ignore a decade-long political process in European politics and its huge bureaucratic trail, and try to give a simple alternative explanation that hinges on a handful of out-of-context quotes from Baker and Genschler, because there is nothing else to back it up. It's like quoting some overly alarmist NASA memo questioning radiation shielding of Apollo spacecraft, and using that to "prove" that the Moon landings never happened - ignoring the immense work that 400 000 people and countless institutions and companies all across the world put into it over a decade, and all the trails they left behind.

You have to throw away a decade worth of European diplomacy to subscribe to the Russian talking point about broken promises and encirclement.

I am referring to the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation. It was signed in May 1997 during NATO summit in Paris. At the next summit in July, the first former Warsaw Pact countries were invited into NATO. Official negotiations began in September.

I see no conflicts with commonly accepted definitions of conspiracy theory: "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" (Merriam-Webster).

How did former Warsaw Pact countries end up in NATO?

According to conventional understanding, former Warsaw Pact countries seeked political, economic and military security through cooperation in international organizations ranging from Council of Europe to NATO.

According to the conspiracy theory, NATO and Russia made a secret deal to divide Europe, but the USA did not keep their side of the deal, intentionally misled Russia and forced Warsaw Pact countries into NATO in order to encircle, attack and destroy Russia.

And that's why I call it a conspiracy theory - it relies on a small number of select snippets, interpreted in the most favorable way possible, ignoring things like explicit statements to the opposite from the very same sources. A textbook example of conspiratorial thinking.

The facts are simple:

1. Possible NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was never discussed.

2. There was no assurance from NATO to Soviet Union on possible NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries.

3. Key members of the Soviet leadership explicitly deny any such assurances.

4. Russia never brought up any such assurances when Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO.

5. Russia and NATO signed a treaty greenlighting NATO enlargement before any official talks with Warsaw Pact countries started.

What was discussed in 1990:

1. Integration of East German military into NATO structures.

2. Size and composition of German military after reunification.

3. Placement of NATO forces (that is, from the US, UK, and elsewhere) in East Germany.

This has nothing to do with NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries.

Placement of NATO troops (discussed) and potential members of NATO (not discussed) should not be confused.

My quote is from the same interview. I repeat: "The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years."

If that interview leaves anything unclear, then Spiegel tried to get a "yes, assurances existed" answer from foreign minister Shevardnadze from several different angles, but he replied to every attempt with a "No."

Spiegel: https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e...

Soviet leadership, including Gorbachev himself, have explicitly denied that any assurances existed. Like Shevardnadze, he denied that they even talked about it with western counterparts. In his own words: "The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context…"

Nobody brought the alleged assurances up when former Warsaw Pact joined NATO either. This narrative didn't exist until mid-2000, by which time NATO enlargement had largely ended.

The spirit that Gorbachev bitterly speaks about is his idea of "Common European Home" that did not come to fruition, as Eastern Europe didn't want to have anything to do with Russians after half a century of oppression and turned their backs as soon as they could choose their own path. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Home

As Shevardnadze clarifies, all they talked about NATO was strictly in the context of German reunification and attempts to take quotes out of context are anarchronistic. What assurances did the USSR need if it had a large nuclear-equipped group of forces in Poland?

And besides that, many years later, but months before former Warsaw Pact countries started official NATO negotiations, NATO and Russia signed a treaty that gave a green light.

So one one side of the conspiracy theory, you have a handful of scraps arranged to look like something, and on the opposing side you have actual written agreements and recollections from key people directly involved in those events.

>> Because it was verbally promised by different high ranking officials, that the NATO would NOT move further east.

Not according to the Soviet foreign minister at the time. He also explains why this conspiracy theory is nonsense: at the time when that verbal promise was allegedly given, no-one could even imagine that Warsaw Pact would cease to exist. According to him, NATO status of Warsaw Pact countries was not discussed with Western officials, not discussed within Warsaw Pact, and not within Communist Party circles in Moscow either.

https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/interview-with-e...

Nor did you answer my question. Why do Russian apologists try to word this as NATO was somehow forced upon Eastern Europe instead of integration into international institutions being their own long-term goal?

>> But europe is not the US, as far as I know.

Doesn't really change anything in the equation. Russian missiles in Kaliningrad can hit key US military installations like Ramstein AFB and RAF Lakenheath with practically no warning. They are a direct threat from a hostile country that keeps making threats about using them, this is far more serious than any imagined Mexican alliance.

And yet, the reaction is... what? Where are B52s bombing Kaliningrad?

>> I also know how "the west" moved further east step by step.

I am sure you do. Can you tell me why Russian apologists always phrase it as if a shadowy cabal in Washington forced countries into international cooperation, instead of portraying as it actually was?

>> persistent and excessive

>> intense and often irrational

There's nothing excessive or irrational in not wanting to die for your bunker rat's fever dreams.

And they are absolutely correct to point out that using the word 'russophobia' only highlights who you are.

>> That USA would in fact tolerate chinese military in mexico?

This is such a poor rhethorical question. Why play with hypothethicals like Mexico and China, if Europe already has direct Russian nukes in Kaliningrad enclave in the middle of Europe with constant threats of destroying Warsaw and London? And yet, that's tolerated, unlike what people like you suggest and imagine.

Relevant maps: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/11/23...

>> That's how the alliance markets itself, but that's not how everyone in the world, especially their potential adversaries, perceives it.

Not since 1990, at least. Cold War era defensive structures were dismantled when Warsaw Pact dissolved and Russia never established any comparable defensive structures on its own borders.

In terms of military doctrine, composition and placement of armed forces, preparations of border defenses, early warning systems etc, Russia has not prepared for invasion in any way. Why, if they perceive this as a threat like you say? With virtually all of Russia's fighting force in Ukraine, the road to Russia is wide open. There isn't even a wire fence on Russian side of border with NATO countries Norway, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia! Where do you see any signs of belief in threat from NATO to Russia?

Countries that border Russia, in contrast, have made extensive preparations to fight off another Russian invasion.

Comparisons with Cuba ignore the fact that the balance of military power in Europe is heavily in Russia's favor. For example, Russia hosts nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad enclave, in the middle of Europe. Map: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1...

And now it's placing further nuclear missiles in Belarus.

And yet, when countries directly threatened by these weapons seek mutual defense pacts and cooperation with other countries in Europe and North America, you call this a provocation. Russia can place nukes in Europe and that's fine, but Poland can't even hold joint military exercises with France. Can you tell me why?

Not only have Russians flooded cities, they are also firing artillery into flooded areas to hamper rescue efforts: https://twitter.com/bayraktar_1love/status/16667845787473960...

If your mental model of the world sees Russia as a normal functional country instead of a terrorist state capable, willing and engaged in unrestricted warfare against civilians, then of course you'll find yourself in situations where you "don't understand" what's going on.

Despite all the imperialism, Russians keep their wallets close. Western-aligned government (with expected rise in living standard) would've been an argument to stay in Ukraine, not to leave for Russia.

In grander scheme, I believe that to be among the among main reasons why Russia invaded Ukraine. Free, prosperous Ukraine would've become an alternative power center in the Russian-speaking world. Imagine if Ukraine had followed Poland post-1991 and had the same median wage nowadays, double the median wage in Russia, with free access to Western markets. That would simply drain Russia from talent, and undermine Putin's legitimacy and the power of all who surround him.

What would've been the reason to live or start a business in Russia if you could move to a country with very similar culture, do the same job, and earn multiples of what your potential in Russia would be capped to? All while enjoying better security in all aspects: economomic safety, personal safety from harm, rule of law, etc.

Agreed. Three things that stood out:

- "You had nothing to fear unless you were plotting something": someone overhearing mild criticism or a politically charged joke was enough to ruin lives, get yourself or relatives kicked out of universities, lose jobs, homes, and so forth. It's impossible to describe living a day after day for decades under that constant anxiety to a person who has always had the freedom to say whatever they want. Even rural potato farmers knew to keep their mouths shut unless they were in a circle of people they trusted.

- "Alcoholism is worse now": oh god no. For starters, it was socially acceptable to drink and be drunk at work, even if you worked with heavy equipment (farms, factories). If you caused an accident, then being drunk was a valid excuse and lessened the punishment.

- "Corruption is widespread everywhere": given the contant shortage of goods, everyone in positions of power always had the attitude of "what's there in it for me?". Everywhere you went to ask for something, be it officials, nurses, dentists or teachers, had the expectation of getting something in return. The whole society ran like a giant "one red paperclip" experiment, with people constantly exchanging bribes and favors and looking for best deals for themselves without any regard for laws and fairness.

Bananas have a symbol status, given how mundane they are in countries that are open to international trade and how infamously difficult they were to get back then (among many other similarly mundane products). In mid-1950s, USSR imported 2000 tons, and by mid-1980s, peaked at around 80 000 tons. Present-day Russia has half the population, but imports 1 500 000 tons.

It's beyond imagination to westerners I've spoken to that people used to queue for hours on the rare occasions when bananas were available, and that most people lived to their 30s and 40s without ever tasting a banana (despite wanting to).

Statistics glance over this "human experience" side of things when making comparisons.

Stockholm syndrome. My father swears by rock hard toffee candy, because that's how they were by the time they reached his local store. Modern iteration that stays soft as intended and melts in mouth is blasphemy according to him.

CIA notoriously overestimated the USSR by assuming competence within (what seemed to them) reasonable bounds. Bananas were luxury items and this sad thing was the most popular ice cream, fondly remembered to this day, because there was nothing better: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Plombir_...

In some select border regions that could pick up foreign TV channels (Karelia and Estonia), authorities told that the grocery stores shown in commercials were a CIA psyop. Soviet citizens up to to the highest levels of party elite were deeply shaken when they could finally travel and experience them in person: https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/When...

Imagine coming from that pathetic ice cream and suddenly seeing huge shelves full of everything you can imagine, and not only ice cream, but all other categories too. That was a tremendous cultural shock to anyone who had grown up in the USSR, beyond wildest imagination.

The idea that US and USSR were equals or even anything near it is totally absurd. You can see the same tradition continue in how Russia's potential in Ukraine was ridiculously overestimated, and how mundane things like toilet bowls and washing machines are deemed by Russian soldiers and officers as worthy of looting.

>> in socialist societies it's the working class

How does it manifest itself? Did the Eastern Bloc working class have the best access to education, medicine and goods? Was there no party elite with dedicated hospitals and exclusive stores open only to them? Did the working class have any say who and how ran the countries? Could a working man even plant their version of a "Biden blows" sign in front yard without imprisonment?

It's all a part of the same picture. Details and figures may vary a little based on which periods are used for reference, but the overall story remains the same. As of April, according to RU FinMin, income from oil&gas is down -52% YoY, expenditure up +26%, deficit at 30%. In a departure from the usual dry and humorless style of official press releases, they describe outlook as positive.

And even these figures are artificially pumped by factors like the previously mentioned "trade in local currencies". India pays for oil in rupees, which are piling up in Indian banks because there is no use for them. Russia has no comparable demand for Indian goods, can't exhange rupees for other currencies, can't pay to third countries in rupees, and is unwilling to invest that money in India. Oil flows to India, nothing comes back.

If this is how Russia "successfully skirts western sanctions", then may it continue for a long time.