Appleyard:


The last straw that broke the Camel's back - revealing US imperialism tendency and Cold War rhetorics, was when American Unilaterally withdrew from the START Treaty, to the ire of Rus (for what purpose? Only Missy can tell). And to add salt to injury, the missile shield right next door to them began, and has now taken shape - a cursory picture of the cold war era. ( US missiles in Turkey and Italy, Soviet/Russia missiles to Cuba) and we all knew what happened then. But now, some mendacious folks supposes that Russia musnt worry. Hypocrisy.

This Dutch author Jens Jorgen Nielsen gets it, Felix Baumgartner gets it, the Czech president gets it, Gehard Shroeder gets it. Paul Craig Roberts gets it. So does Stephen Lendman, Stephen Cohen, Noam Chomsky, Oliver Stone and Ron Paul - and so many others. Even - as much as I hate to say it - Donald Trump gets it. Are all these people full of hate for Amerika? Are they nothing but paid Kremlin trolls and Putin bots? I can only pray that the remaining folks that are in a slumber or brainwashed into delusion or are in denial also get it.... We can only pray

[size=18pt]Why the Europeans Have Signed Up for the US's 'Insane March on Russia'[/size]



The Europeans have let themselves to be drawn into an ‘insane march on Russia’ by concentrating the largest amount of military hardware on Russia’s borders since the Second World War, putting Europe at risk of a hot conflict. However, if there is one spark, Europe will be the first victim, according to Danish author Jens Jorgen Nielsen.

Europe is very close to a major war for the first time since the end of the Second World War, Jens Jorgen Nielsen writes in his blog for theDanish newspaper Arbejderen.


A mask during an anti-NATO protest rally
© SPUTNIK/ VLADIMIR PESNYA
'It's Time to Leave NATO Now!' Europeans Launch New Anti-War Campaign

However, only recently it seemed that the Cold War was over and a “large global community” was just around the corner.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the residents of its former republics opened their arms to the West and its ideology. Even when NATO started its expansion eastwards, taking in countries of the former Warsaw Pact, the West continued to talk about “growing stability” in the world.

However, this time has irrevocably passed and many contentious issues are now breeding concern.

The Europeans have let themselves become drawn into an ‘insane march on Russia’ so that the US can satisfy its global interests, but this might lead to very catastrophic consequences, the author warns.

Firstly, NATO has concentrated the largest amount of military hardware and military personnel right on Russia’s borders since the end of the Second World War. This can’t but raise Russia’s concerns.
“There is no wonder that the Germans have refused to send their battalion to the Baltics,” the author says.

“We in the West might have forgotten, but the Russians still remember how Nazi Germany invaded from that very direction and how the war took 27 million [Soviet] lives,” Jens Jorgen Nielsen says.

Secondly, taking into account that George W. Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty back in 2002, now there are no restrictions prohibiting the deployment of cruise and ballistic missiles on Russia’s borders.

They may be based on NATO warships in the Baltic Sea or in other locations, and it would take the Alliance less than five minutes to hit, for example, Russia's St. Petersburg, the author says.
Some of the Western countries which possess nuclear weapons might cherish illusions that the so-called “defense missiles” are able to neutralize Russia’s long-range strategic nuclear missiles and thus eliminate the so-called “mutual deterrence.”

As a result, the western strategists might be tempted to attack first, assuming that NATO “could win” the nuclear war with Russia. However, in reality this is nothing but a dangerous delusion, as Russia’s weaponry is far more advanced than for example that of Iraq, Nielsen warns.


Thirdly, the diplomatic relations between Russia and the West are currently frozen.
Republican Ronald Reagan took certain practical steps to initiate nuclear disarmament negotiations with Gorbachev in the second half of the 1980s, but nowadays one can only wonder how Democratic President Obama could have plunged Europe into such a dangerous position.
Therefore, the author says, the Scandinavians should understand that the Democrats are not so good and the Republicans are not so evil, as they always thought.

The author cites another example: it was the Democrat John F. Kennedy, who was very close to triggering a nuclear war because the Soviet Union had installed missiles in Cuba in 1962 within a radius of 90 miles (144 km) of the US.

Nowadays it is a Republican, Donald Trump, who is asking why the US is engaged in so many wars around the world, and why the US has such bad relationship with Russia.

Many of those who do not support Trump, however, are asking the very same questions.

So, the Danish author suggests it is high time for the European countries to ask the following question: “how could the Europeans have allowed themselves to be harnessed to a cart driven solely by the US and its global interests?”

The US perceives Russia and China as the countries which, if not threatening it, prompt seriously questions about its hegemony in the world.

The author then questions who would be the first to pay if there is a nuclear war unleashed on the European continent.

He then forecasts: the first would probably be Scandinavia, Poland or the Baltics.

vedaxcool:
[img]http://s2.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20160304&t=2&i=1122344281&w=&fh=&fw=&ll=644&pl=429&sq=&r=LYNXNPEC230WG.jpeg[/img]

The only woman with the balls to slap putin to death

I will propose to Seun Osewa that a sophistication categorization be introduced to sections such as the Foreign Affairs section because of posts like this so that we can weed out the boys from the men, the jokers from the serious folks and the clueless pretenders from the informed.

First, you don't know how to Google. Now the best jab you can throw is to say this raving ma.d l.unatic will "slap Putin to death"
How very insightful. Clap for yasef

[s]

NairaMinted:


Lol! Welcome back. Your "heroine" will soon play a big role in the implosion of the Kiev junta. Mark my words....... Or rather, screenshot my comments

[/s]

I suggest an IQ test be conducted for memebers in this section, the rate of extensively dumb rhetorics from our Russian hasbara trolls make it seems we are dealing with escaped loonies. Putin boy kissing antics stand a greater chance of ruining Russia than your silly drunken claims

[s]

NairaMinted:


I will propose to Seun Osewa that a sophistication categorization be introduced to sections such as the Foreign Affairs section because of posts like this so that we can weed out the boys from the men, the jokers from the serious folks and the clueless pretenders from the informed.

First, you don't know how to Google. Now the best jab you can throw is to say this raving ma.d l.unatic will "slap Putin to death"
How very insightful. Clap for yasef

[/s]

I have heard of tears of joy not laughter of sadness buhahaha

vedaxcool:
[s][/s]

I suggest an IQ test be conducted for memebers in this section, the rate of extensively dumb rhetorics from our Russian hasbara trolls make it seems we are dealing with escaped loonies. Putin boy kissing antics stand a greater chance of ruining Russia than your silly drunken claims

An Artificial Intelligence Machine is far more intelligent than these folks

ValerianSteel:
An Artificial Intelligence Machine is far more intelligent than these folks

Abacus would fare better than this deluded worms

@Nairaminted. At times i feel like crying for some of our brethren at the other end of the divide. It is extremely painful to realize that we live in a world today where people with eyes wide open walk into the gutter of falsehood to dance with the pigs that has made the mud and dirt part of its nature. As a result of an inbibed hate, lack of reason and truthfulness, every other persons that speaks contrary to their propaganda ingrained warped delusive beliefs, is tagged, ''western haters, Putin bots, Conspiracy theorist, a jealous of American life and wealth, etc; not caring to weigh the prons and cons. Now, thats how you know a brainwashed and deluded fellow, who, thinking that he knows it all, whereas has been successfully indoctrinated and become wired as such that to even comprehend and accept the most basic truth in the face of factual reality, becomes a Heculian task like WAEC.
That explain why you hear folks chorusing the derogatory mantra that Puting wants to recreate the Soviet Union, in the wake of the Crimean annexation; because a certain lying fitch called Hillary Clinton said so. But they won't care to consider the events that led to that, nor will they ever want to believe the concept of realpolitiks - the ingredients of which you and i have already mentioned.

So, shield sword, brother, and lets wait to hear further explanation they might have up their sleeves. I can't wait to hear who NATO is defending against in Romania and Poland. You never can tell. Maybe Milisonevich of then Yugoslavia is back from the dead, and Qadafi must have awoken, taken on a Baltic citizenship.

In this business, anything is possible.

Appleyard:
And you think your answer made any sense? All the same, let me reply it.

After the SU implosion, percieving Russia weakness in 1995, the US and NATO gave Russia cause to view it as a threat when it began the first wave of its Eastern expansion, breaking its earlier promise to the contrary. Yet, this then hasn't translated fully into the political spectrum. But this was soon about to change.

The Kosovo crisis and the bombardment of Belgrade without UN authorization, further poured fuel to the already heating fire, vis the economic crisis of 98.

The last straw that broke the Camel's back - revealing US imperialism tendency and Cold War rhetorics, was when American Unilaterally withdrew from the START Treaty, to the ire of Rus (for what purpose? Only Missy can tell). And to add salt to injury, the missile shield right next door to them began, and has now taken shape - a cursory picture of the cold war era. ( US missiles in Turkey and Italy, Soviet/Russia missiles to Cuba) and we all knew what happened then. But now, some mendacious folks presupposes that Russia musnt worry. Hypocrisy!

The Georgian war of 2008 was another cold war era indicator, wherein the US and NATO backed and supplied Georgia as they could, Just like the Soviet to the Vietcong vs USA; USA to Afghan vs Soviet Union.

The Iraq war? Just a cause for more irritation.

Mitt Romney simply stated the truth back then in 2012, and your Obama who laughed him then, has confirmed it and proved him right by his own policies and dealings with Russia today. Karma is a bad fowl that always come home to roost.
The truth will always find its way to the surface.

What about Libya? Leav3d that for another day.

All of the above are facts that happened wayback before the Ukrainian antagonism you mentioned (needless to say the US provoked the crisis). And they all have one thing in common; COLD WAR MENTALITY. IT NEVER DIED, AND WILL NEVER DIE.

Let that sink in.

That is the reason both sides have been zealously trying to out perform each other in Nuclear deterence till date.

And the underlying reality in all of these, is the ughly head of REALPOLITIK.

Similarly, the Russian threat perception is also influenced by the
Soviet past, by Russian domestic politics, and by the character of current U.S.-Russian and NATO-Russian relations. Prospective and current Russian military reforms is underlined, if not endangered by continuing threat perceptions that
exaggerate Russian military weakness and by
domestic and foreign forces that play against a rational assessment of Russia's geostrategic requirements.


Now, You still have not told me what or who NATO is defending against in the East.

I will be waiting.

Sometimes i wonder why you type a lot yet make very little sense.

I asked you why the US would want to invade Russia, You had no answer. Instead you were talking about Kosovo Iraq and Libya. Can you stick to the topic and give me one simple reason?

You even lied that America withdrew from the START treaty. That is the greatest lie you ever told. America NEVER DID.

You keep talking about NATO and the expansion eastward, First, It was a political expansion and few troops have been stationed there since those countries joined NATO. As a sign of good will, NATO created a Russia-NATO council so that Russia can send delegates to NATO ( The council have been suspended after Crimea).

Another concession was made when START II was about to be signed, The US canceled the planned missile defense in Poland and Czech republic.

Even Gorbachev have said that the US never promised him there wont be an expansion to the east but you keep repeating the old kremlin line to show that you cant think and do research for yourself

Read here: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/11/06-nato-no-promise-enlarge-gorbachev-pifer

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:

1)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.

2)There would be no increase in the numbers of troops or equipment of U.S., British and French forces stationed in Berlin.

3)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.

There were few NATO troops in the east up until Crimea. Take that to the bank!.

Can you name one real reason the US would want to Invade Russia? What purpose?. What you did was list innuendos and outright lies that is not related to the question. What does Libya, Kosovo and Iraq have to do with invading Russia?

Appleyard:
@Nairaminted. At times i feel like crying for some of our brethren at the other end of the divide. It is extremely painful to realize that we live in a world today where people with eyes wide open walk into the gutter of falsehood to dance with the pigs that has made the mud and dirt part of its nature. As a result of an inbibed hate, lack of reason and truthfulness, every other persons that speaks contrary to their propaganda ingrained warped delusive beliefs, is tagged, ''western haters, Putin bots, Conspiracy theorist, a jealous of American life and wealth, etc; not caring to weigh the prons and cons. Now, thats how you know a brainwashed and deluded fellow, who, thinking that he knows it all, whereas has been successfully indoctrinated and become wired as such that to even comprehend and accept the most basic truth in the face of factual reality, becomes a Heculian task like WAEC.
That explain why you hear folks chorusing the derogatory mantra that Puting wants to recreate the Soviet Union, in the wake of the Crimean annexation; because a certain lying fitch called Hillary Clinton said so. But they won't care to consider the events that led to that, nor will they ever want to believe the concept of realpolitiks - the ingredients of which you and i have already mentioned.

So, shield sword, brother, and lets wait to hear further explanation they might have up their sleeves. I can't wait to hear who NATO is defending against in Romania and Poland. You never can tell. Maybe Milisonevich of then Yugoslavia is back from the dead, and Qadafi must have awoken, taken on a Baltic citizenship.

In this business, anything is possible.

What events warranted Russia's annexation of Crimea?

Do you want to deny that Putin hasn't been pushing a ”Greater Russia” doctrine?The annexation of Crimea is an example of Russia leaning towards building an empire again.

Appleyard:
@Nairaminted. At times i feel like crying for some of our brethren at the other end of the divide. It is extremely painful to realize that we live in a world today where people with eyes wide open walk into the gutter of falsehood to dance with the pigs that has made the mud and dirt part of its nature. As a result of an inbibed hate, lack of reason and truthfulness, every other persons that speaks contrary to their propaganda ingrained warped delusive beliefs, is tagged, ''western haters, Putin bots, Conspiracy theorist, a jealous of American life and wealth, etc; not caring to weigh the prons and cons. Now, thats how you know a brainwashed and deluded fellow, who, thinking that he knows it all, whereas has been successfully indoctrinated and become wired as such that to even comprehend and accept the most basic truth in the face of factual reality, becomes a Heculian task like WAEC.
That explain why you hear folks chorusing the derogatory mantra that Puting wants to recreate the Soviet Union, in the wake of the Crimean annexation; because a certain lying fitch called Hillary Clinton said so. But they won't care to consider the events that led to that, nor will they ever want to believe the concept of realpolitiks - the ingredients of which you and i have already mentioned.

So, shield sword, brother, and lets wait to hear further explanation they might have up their sleeves. I can't wait to hear who NATO is defending against in Romania and Poland. You never can tell. Maybe Milisonevich of then Yugoslavia is back from the dead, and Qadafi must have awoken, taken on a Baltic citizenship.

In this business, anything is possible.

This is why Poland and Romania want to be in NATO.

Poland : Katyn Massacre; Russian government killed all the country's intellectuals and officers in other to occupy the country in 1939
Mass deportations of Polish citizens from their homeland to the East
Arresting Polish leaders, tortured them and killed some of them( Trial of the Sixteen) and forming their own puppet government in Poland.
for over 4 decades
Go and study the history of Poland from 1945–89 and learn from it.

Romania : After promising King Michael that Romania's sovereignty would be respected, The Romanians switch sides and joined the allies. Romanian solders were instead slaughter en mass by the Russians, shot anti communist protesters, had control over the country till the late 1950s,

By the time hostilities between Romania and the Soviet Union ended, Romania's military losses had totaled about 110,000 killed and 180,000 missing or captured; the Red Army also transported about 130,000 Romanian soldiers to the Soviet Union, where many perished in prison camps. After its surrender, Romania committed about fifteen divisions to the Allied cause under Soviet command. Before the end of hostilities against Germany, about 120,000 Romanian troops perished helping the Red Army liberate Czechoslovakia and Hungary. - Library of Congress

Again study Romania's History from the late 40s to the early 50s. Eastern Europeans have learned from their history and realized that only an alliance with a more powerful military can guarantee their independence after the fall of the soviet union. Hopefully, you will answer my question and tell me why the US will want to invade Russia.

[s]

Missy89:


Sometimes i wonder why you type a lot yet make very little sense.

I asked you why the US would want to invade Russia, You had no answer. Instead you were talking about Kosovo Iraq and Libya. Can you stick to the topic and give me one simple reason?

You even lied that America withdrew from the START treaty. That is the greatest lie you ever told. America NEVER DID.

You keep talking about NATO and the expansion eastward, First, It was a political expansion and few troops have been stationed there since those countries joined NATO. As a sign of good will, NATO created a Russia-NATO council so that Russia can send delegates to NATO ( The council have been suspended after Crimea).

Another concession was made when START II was about to be signed, The US canceled the planned missile defense in Poland and Czech republic.

Even Gorbachev have said that the US never promised him there wont be an expansion to the east but you keep repeating the old kremlin line to show that you cant think and do research for yourself

Read here: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/11/06-nato-no-promise-enlarge-gorbachev-pifer

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:

1)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.

2)There would be no increase in the numbers of troops or equipment of U.S., British and French forces stationed in Berlin.

3)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.

There were few NATO troops in the east up until Crimea. Take that to the bank!.

Can you name one real reason the US would want to Invade Russia? What purpose?. What you did was list innuendos and outright lies that is not related to the question. What does Libya, Kosovo and Iraq have to do with invading Russia?

[/s]

Each time I see poor people write, I can easily tell what they are suffering from. When Russia was stocking Nukes in Cuba, what made U.S think the Russians would one day invade U.S ? This lead to cuba missile crises that made U.S finally stopped the presure on Cuba.

The truth of the matter is, U.S has invaded all the former Soviet union states via hybride war fare and turned it to a NATO colonial state or empire state. WHat made U.S invade Chechinia with its proxy armies back in the day ? This is not even new. High ranking U.S official was wired taped dealing with head of the terrorist back then and when Moscow wrote to Washington, washinton replied, they are dealing with opposition. The same way they are telling you they are dealing with opposition in Syria today ??


What made crazy Hitler to invade ?? Who was pushing him to invade ?? (I have answered youin my previous post, the same U.S and Canada were backing hilter to go on offensive with Soviet states and it's the reason you have 80% of those that died in the war were Sovets. Arent they doing the same thing in Syria now ? With different terrorist groups but here hitler like scenario?

The same people that are now in real life Pushing the Baltics, Poland, Romania and Ukraine to commit suicide just like hitler did back in the day. The same crook invaded Ukraine via the same Hydride warfare, to install a puppet in Kiev and has made those Eastern side to quickly seek refuge after thousands died in the past fighting hitler, the same hilter but in another form has invaded them again.

Many people do not even know that Kievian Rus was innitially the capital of Russia before it relocated to Moscow. What has it turned to today ?

Thank Goodness the history is still there.

Today, you now have an empire that wants to Isolate other countries that do not agree with its rule and this is what will lead to confrontation, War in South China Sea, Eastern Europe and Middle east. How could someone as mad as this Neocons even think they could for one second isolate Russia or China ??

It's even Pure madness to even think of such thing.

You are too foolish to get into any debate with and I will continue to tackle you.

Olodo osi. Very unintelligent!

Missy89:



I asked you why the US would want to invade Russia, You had no answer. Instead you were talking about Kosovo Iraq and Libya. Can you stick to the to reason?

The problem usually associated with you, is that NOTHING ever make sense to you. And sadly now as it seem, lack of comprehension is becoming a part of that too. But let me summarise it all up to make it simple for you: THE COLD WAR MENTALITY NEVER ENDED. Ask me for additional examples plus the ones i have already listed before. You know am always generous to you, my lovely Queen.

You keep talking about NATO and the expansion eastward, First, It was a political expansion and few troops have been stationed there since those countries joined NATO. As a sign of good will, NATO created a Russia-NATO council so that Russia can send delegates to NATO ( The council have been suspended after Crimea).

The expansion of NATO will never mean anything to you because you blindly refuse to comprehend the GLARING cold war mentality and the notion of realpolitiks. When you are ready for this, come back to your husband and lets talk. By the way, political deployment is the necessary factor for a military one. Don't you forget that.

Another concession was made when START II was about to be signed, The US canceled the planned missile defense in Poland and Czech republic.

Honestly, you got me on that, cause i made a blunder naming START instead of the ABM Treaty.
Not withstanding, the Poland program is coming up next year or so, plus the already functional Romanian one. The Czech part of it might just be reprioritized afresh. So, we are back to square one.

Even Gorbachev have said that the US never promised him there wont be an expansion to the east but you keep repeating the old kremlin line to show that you cant think and do research for your.

So you were caught up in that crap too, just like a lot of people were. Well, you can be forgiven. But first, it was never a Kremlin line. 2nd, Gorbachev didn't said that...though there was a lot of confusion about this. But this is where logic reasoning comes in after weighing the necessary facts.

Now, in the law of contract, there are expressed and implied terms, just as there are written and oral agreements.

Here is the testimony of a formal minister of Germany back then...amidst an interview...

...But how could the Soviet leadership be persuaded to support this solution?

"I wanted to help them over the hurdle," Genscher told SPIEGEL. To that end, the German foreign minister promised, in his speech in Tutzing, that there would not be "an expansion of NATO territory to the east, in other words, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union." East Germany was not to be brought into the military structures of NATO, and the door into the alliance was to remain closed to the countries of Eastern Europe.

You hear am?

Even the US ambassador to Russia confirmed the implied terms... Read more below...amidst other denial...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html

Even in 2008, the US embassy in Russia recieved the below exerpt...

…we have the text of a State Department cable dated Feb. 1, 2008, from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow bearing the unusual title: “NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES.”

The idiiots knew there were RED LINES but yet they deliberately chose to cross them. They even predicted and anticipated the current events playing out right now in Ukraine, as far back as in 2008. And yet they went for it..

Talk about the Devil.

Just read further here...

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/bill-clintons-epic-double-cross-how-not-an-inch-brought-nato-to-russias-border/

Now use your own suo mo tu, logically match the facts and unbiasly draw your own conclusion: it was clear THERE WAS A PROMISE NOT TO EXPAND EASTWARD, EVEN AT AN INCHE.

And that was the Russian RED LINE their own State Department was talking about in that cable.



Innuendos? There are no innuendos here. Your refusal to see the reality the way it is, will never make you see reason. It would be the height of stup1dity to expect a country that lost more than 25 million people to an invasion, despite having a ''none aggression pact'' with the enemy, should now fold its hand and applaud the deployment of Missiles by its most vocal enemy to its door steps? RUSSIA WILL NEVER MAKE THAT MISTAKE AGAIN!

Nato-Russia Council my foot! When same Russia asked to be inducted into the alliance, why was he refused, if they didn't have ulterior motive? :-( And you expect them not to show their concerned and be wary of an invasion? Mtcheew!

This was the same Missy89 that once argue this same line to the contrary with boakface, now saying otherwise.

Why have thou fallen, my love.. ;-(

Now, who is NATO Defending against in the East?

scully95:
[s][/s]

Each time I see poor people write, I can easily tell what they are suffering from. When Russia was stocking Nukes in Cuba, what made U.S think the Russians would one day invade U.S? This lead to cuba missile crises that made U.S finally stopped the presure on Cuba.

Question for the offsprings of illusion. To them, the US have the right to be afraid of an invasion then, but now, Russia shouldn't reserve that right. Talk about hypocrisy.

The truth of the matter is, U.S has invaded all the former Soviet union states via hybride war fare and turned it to a NATO colonial state or empire state. WHat made U.S invade Chechinia with its proxy armies back in the day ? This is not even new. High ranking U.S official was wired taped dealing with head of the terrorist back then and when Moscow wrote to Washington, washinton replied, they are dealing with opposition. The same way they are telling you they are dealing with opposition in Syria today ??

But according to my love, Russia was not an enemy to the US before 2015, and yet, you were arming the opposition in its own country. We all know how NATO and the US also armed and supported Georgia in 2008 against Russia. Yet, Russia wasn't an enemy till 2015.

Oh, my lovely Queen... Oh...

Missy89:


This is why Poland and Romania want to be in NATO.

Poland : Katyn Massacre; Russian government killed all the country's intellectuals and officers in other to occupy the country in 1939
Mass deportations of Polish citizens from their homeland to the East
Arresting Polish leaders, tortured them and killed some of them( Trial of the Sixteen) and forming their own puppet government in Poland.
for over 4 decades
Go and study the history of Poland from 1945–89 and learn from it.

Romania : After promising King Michael that Romania's sovereignty would be respected, The Romanians switch sides and joined the allies. Romanian solders were instead slaughter en mass by the Russians, shot anti communist protesters, had control over the country till the late 1950s,

By the time hostilities between Romania and the Soviet Union ended, Romania's military losses had totaled about 110,000 killed and 180,000 missing or captured; the Red Army also transported about 130,000 Romanian soldiers to the Soviet Union, where many perished in prison camps. After its surrender, Romania committed about fifteen divisions to the Allied cause under Soviet command. Before the end of hostilities against Germany, about 120,000 Romanian troops perished helping the Red Army liberate Czechoslovakia and Hungary. - Library of Congress

Again study Romania's History from the late 40s to the early 50s. Eastern Europeans have learned from their history and realized that only an alliance with a more powerful military can guarantee their independence after the fall of the soviet union. Hopefully, you will answer my question and tell me why the US will want to invade Russia.

Oohhh God! This is the reason i get tired in debating with you at times. Romania, this, that, have previously suffered in the hands of Soviet Russia, Nobody is disputing that, my friend. Now, they joined Nato, thats right. And Nato according to you have right to move weapons to any of its territory, abi? Ok o. (I just dey laf.)

The question now is; who is Nato defending against in Poland and Romania? Just who?

Appleyard:


The problem usually associated with you, is that NOTHING ever make sense to you. And sadly now as it seem, lack of comprehension is becoming a part of that too. But let me summarise it all up to make it simple for you: THE COLD WAR MENTALITY NEVER ENDED. Ask me for additional examples plus the ones i have already listed before. You know am always generous to you, my lovely Queen.



The expansion of NATO will never mean anything to you because you blindly refuse to comprehend the GLARING cold war mentality and the notion of realpolitiks. When you are ready for this, come back to your husband and lets talk. By the way, political deployment is the necessary factor for a military one. Don't you forget that.



Honestly, you got me on that, cause i made a blunder naming START instead of the ABM Treaty.
Not withstanding, the Poland program is coming up next year or so, plus the already functional Romanian one. The Czech part of it might just be reprioritized afresh. So, we are back to square one.



So you were caught up in that crap too, just like a lot of people were. Well, you can be forgiven. But first, it was never a Kremlin line. 2nd, Gorbachev didn't said that...though there was a lot of confusion about this. But this is where logic reasoning comes in after weighing the necessary facts.

Now, in the law of contract, there are expressed and implied terms, just as there are written and oral agreements.

Here is the testimony of a formal minister of Germany back then...amidst an interview...

...But how could the Soviet leadership be persuaded to support this solution?

"I wanted to help them over the hurdle," Genscher told SPIEGEL. To that end, the German foreign minister promised, in his speech in Tutzing, that there would not be "an expansion of NATO territory to the east, in other words, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union." East Germany was not to be brought into the military structures of NATO, and the door into the alliance was to remain closed to the countries of Eastern Europe.

You hear am?

Even the US ambassador to Russia confirmed the implied terms... Read more below...amidst other denial...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html

Even in 2008, the US embassy in Russia recieved the below exerpt...

…we have the text of a State Department cable dated Feb. 1, 2008, from the U.S. Embassy in Moscow bearing the unusual title: “NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES.”

The idiiots knew there were RED LINES but yet they deliberately chose to cross them. They even predicted and anticipated the current events playing out right now in Ukraine, as far back as in 2008. And yet they went for it..

Talk about the Devil.

Just read further here...

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/bill-clintons-epic-double-cross-how-not-an-inch-brought-nato-to-russias-border/

Now use your own suo mo tu, logically match the facts and unbiasly draw your own conclusion: it was clear THERE WAS A PROMISE NOT TO EXPAND EASTWARD, EVEN AT AN INCHE.

And that was the Russian RED LINE their own State Department was talking about in that cable.



Innuendos? There are no innuendos here. Your refusal to see the reality the way it is, will never make you see reason. It would be the height of stup1dity to expect a country that lost more than 25 million people to an invasion, despite having a ''none aggression pact'' with the enemy, should now fold its hand and applaud the deployment of Missiles by its most vocal enemy to its door steps? RUSSIA WILL NEVER MAKE THAT MISTAKE AGAIN!

Nato-Russia Council my foot! When same Russia asked to be inducted into the alliance, why was he refused, if they didn't have ulterior motive? :-( And you expect them not to show their concerned and be wary of an invasion? Mtcheew!

This was the same Missy89 that once argue this same line to the contrary with boakface, now saying otherwise.

Why have thou fallen, my love.. ;-(

Now, who is NATO Defending against in the East?

You see this is always the problem. You mix things up without sticking to the facts. I gave you a direct quote from Gobby as per NATO's expansion. You are quoting a third person. Who is in the better position to know if there was an agreement or not? Gobby or the third and fourth persons you are quoting. Now this is from Gorbachev. Read and understand.


RBTH: One of the key issues that has arisen in connection with the events in Ukraine is NATO expansion into the East. Do you get the feeling that your Western partners lied to you when they were developing their future plans in Eastern Europe? Why didn’t you insist that the promises made to you – particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East – be legally encoded? I will quote Baker: “NATO will not move one inch further east.”

Goberchev: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.
Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object.

NATO is an open door organization, If Russia wants to join, Russia will have to change a lot of things like improving rights among other reforms that guides liberal democracies of the west. It is as simple as that. There is a council that coordinates with Russia in NATO. Now that is a fact and saying my foot wont change that.

I see you are still struggling to answer the question. Which country around Russia is the west deploying missiles to? Please answer this question and why would NATO want to Invade Russia? You have not answer this either. You claimed that cold war mentality never ended but if that is the case, the cold war mentality was all about containment and deterrence in the west NOT invasion. So if we are to take your words as facts, it will only reinforce what NATO is doing which is protecting itself from all threats.

During the Cold war in 83 Andropov and the politburo were so concerned NATO will invade them,all their spies that had the highest clearance in NATO could not find a single plan that suggest it was going to happen. NOT ONE.

I may have argued against it before but in the face of overwhelming evidence, I am open minded. That is how you learn.

Appleyard:


Oohhh God! This is the reason i get tired in debating with you at times. Romania, this, that, have previously suffered in the hands of Soviet Russia, Nobody is disputing that, my friend. Now, they joined Nato, thats right. And Nato according to you have right to move weapons to any of its territory, abi? Ok o. (I just dey laf.)

The question now is; who is Nato defending against in Poland and Romania? Just who?

The question has been answered already. When the Soviet Union fell and most countries in Eastern Europe became democracies, they joined NATO to guarantee their sovereignty after decades of Russian oppression. The few that continued business as usual are now paying the price i.e Ukraine.

That doesn't mean they are planning to invade Russia.

Missy89:




That doesn't mean they are planning to invade Russia.

Missy - You will have to choose between leading a peaceful & prosperous life with your sons (kain & abel) under my roof in ijebu or going down with Amerika.

*double-post*

Zoharariel:


Missy - You will have to choose between leading a peaceful & prosperous life with your sons (kain & abel) under my roof in ijebu or going down with Amerika & NATO.

Ijebu Prince
Help me understand why the west wants to invade Russia and what purpose will it serve. None of you have been able to answer this question.

"She puts her feet up on the chair, walks barefoot around the parliament, and hurls accusations against politicians, including the president."

This is just the beginning. Putin has released the Trojan horse and it has set about its work quite quickly it seems. This grouchy, unhinged Savchenko ogre no even try at all sha. It's going about its self destructive work even before my penned prediction is dry

Again: implosion from within.


[size=18pt]Tymoshenko bites back at her party's "barefoot grouch" Savchenko[/size]
June 4, 2016 -
Politchaos -
Translated by J. Arnoldski



Tymoshenko has had enough of Savchenko’s criticism of her. The whole point is that she thinks that Savchenko has “just snapped” and is doing whatever she pleases. After all, we can all see and hear how disdainful she is towards her fellow deputies. She puts her feet up on the chair, walks barefoot around the parliament, and hurls accusations against politicians, including the president. But Nadezhda’s biggest problem is with the leader of the “Fatherland” party, Tymoshenko. Yulia Vladimirovna Tymoshenko has reciprocated these feelings. At the latest session of the Verkhovna Rada, she expressed to Nadezhda everything she thinks about her.

After all, Tymoshenko understands that a bright leader has appeared on the political arena who is completely uncontrollable and could overshadow her own “idiocy” and arrogance.

Savchenko publicly supported the fulfillment of the Minsk Agreements: “We will do everything we can to ensure that they are fulfilled.”


And now Tymoshenko is categorically against such. She has repeatedly subjected them to harsh criticism. It can be said that a “new violin” has appeared in the Verkhovna Rada which is being played out of tune, but nonetheless loudly, which cannot but scare the ex-prime minister, Tymoshenko, and all of her entourage.

Since Mark Toner and John Kirby haven't been providing any comic relief material lately, let's see what our Ukronazi friends have got to offer



[size=18pt]Crazy Ukrainian Propaganda Claims Exchanged Savchenko Is a Double[/size]
Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ
29th May, 2016

[img]http://3.bp..com/-rQ0mqaFlo_M/V0re1HETQ8I/AAAAAAAANyU/AqG9rc0LC2w2tvsL6lS1Df09MpAWx07XQCLcB/s1600/13296244_1041742679238718_1101912234_n.jpg[/img]
Tvzvezda




A video edited by unknown Ukrainian "analysts" is gaining popularity on the Internet, in which a terrible secret is revealed – the Savchenko who returned to Kiev is not the real one, and is a double. This was reported by the website "Russian spring".

Allegedly, the real Ukrainian pilot Savchenko died in a Russian prison from hunger. Instead, the one who returned to Ukraine is Arkady Shestitko, who had a sex change operation and tried to achieve maximum similarity with the gun-layer, convicted in Russia for 22 years.

Ukrainian "experts" were initially confused by the Savchenko's new complexion – according to many, after months of hunger strike, she should be somewhat slimmer. However, Internet users have joked repeatedly on the subject. It was also noted by the creators of the video the fact that supposedly the real Savchenko had a slight squint, which is not present with her twin.

The Russian President has pardoned Savchenko on May 25th, 2016, who the Russian court sentenced to 22 years in prison. She was jailed for the murder of VGTRK journalists Anton Voloshin and Igor Kornelyuk in the Donetsk region.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFHJF4ZQzok

Missy89:


Ijebu Prince
Help me understand why the west wants to invade Russia and what purpose will it serve. None of you have been able to answer this question.

The west wants to invade Russia for the 2 reasons:

1.) Russia's annexation of Crimea - Secondary reason.

2.) Russia's military intervention in Syria - Primary reason

Russia's intervention in syria has stalled Amerikan's pipe-dream to sink gas & crude pipelines from Saudi-Arabia en-route Syria to Europe, and as such, Ashton Carter (Amerika's Defense Secretary) says Russia will pay price on Russian soil over military campaign to prop-up the Bashar Al-assad regime in Syria.

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/08/russia-pay-price-syrian-airstrikes-ashton-carter-us-defence-secretary

PS: Unfortunately for the west, as far as Vladimirovich Putin lives & remains Russia's President, that pipe-dream will never materialize.

Zoharariel:


The west wants to invade Russia for the 2 reasons:

1.) Russia's annexation of Crimea - Secondary reason.

2.) Russia's military intervention in Syria - Primary reason

Russia's intervention in syria has stalled Amerikan's pipe-dream to sink gas & crude pipelines from Saudi-Arabia en-route Syria to Europe, and as such, Ashton Carter (Amerika's Defense Secretary) says Russia will pay price on Russian soil over military campaign to prop-up the Bashar Al-assad regime in Syria.

www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/08/russia-pay-price-syrian-airstrikes-ashton-carter-us-defence-secretary

PS: Unfortunately for the west, as far as Vladimirovich Putin lives & remains Russia's President, that pipe-dream will never materialize.

Ijebu prince please use your meds.

Why would the West want to invade Russia because of Crimea and Syria? Makes no sense. None whatsoever. Lets even pretend that is the case. If these reasons are indeed real, We would have to assume that NATO's expansion to the east has nothing to do with invading Russia since it happened way before Crimea or Syrian Crisis began correct? Most of Saudi oil still get to Europe anyway and by the way.

Carter was talking about reprisal attacks from muslims and terrorists in Russia, and that actually happened. He wasn't talking about invading it. lol. Seriously?

Smh

Missy89:



Carter was talking about reprisal attacks from muslims and terrorists in Russia, and that actually happened.

You mean reprisal attacks from ISIS? and who created, trained & is sponsoring ISIS? Yes, that's what I thought!

Zoharariel:


You mean reprisal attacks from ISIS? and who created, trained & is sponsoring ISIS? Yes, that's what I thought!

Yes the ISIS created by Obama after he received orders from the evil Zionists and their Rothschild friends.

Missy89:


You see this is always the problem. You mix things up without sticking to the facts.

Nobody is mixing anything here. The problem with your lots on this issues is lack of comprehension, misinterpretation and and mistranslation of what was being said and done.
Now lets take a look:

Goberchev: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either.

Phew! Gorbachev is saying here that ''Nato expansion was NOT BROUGHT UP AT ALL,'' right? Was not brought up BY WHOM? NOT A SINGLE EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRY brought up the issue. JESUS! Who were these Eastern European countries? Who made or were privy to the deal signed by Russia and NATO vis the Berlin Wall aftermath? In essence, what Gorbachev is saying here is that, '' no nation in the eastern axis of Europe, including those that were born out from the Warsaw Pact, raised the issue of a NATO expansion family or of joining the alliance, EVEN AFTER THE WARSAW PACT CEASED TO EXIST!
And Western leaders in 1991 never did suggest such expansion motives.

But wait! There was something else..

Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance...

Blood of Goat! How else could NATO Military structures advance without membership of the alliance? Can't you get it? If you are saying that NATO expansion wasn't at all discussed, but you discussed that it's military structures should not move forward: isn't that an expansion already discussed? Are NATO's military structural establishments and deployments devoid of political configurations? And advancement to where? The East. And the East here simply conote Russia's borders and sphere of infuence (not East Germany per se, as the country was being reunified,) except you can furnished a Voodoo map showing Eastern Germany bordering Russia right now.

This much was what Gorbachev was saying, and its the same thing that the Formal German minister, Hans Genscher said when he spoke with Shevardnadze. According to the German record of the conversation, which has now been declassified below...

Genscher said: "We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east." And because the conversion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: "As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general."

Call it the nail to the head!

It was clear that Russia was giving every impression on NATO none expansion down Germany and beyond after reunification, a deal that prompted the Soviet withdrawal of 260,000 troops from there.

McGovern, formal CIA official then, confirmed it.

Jack Matlock, US ambassador to Russia then, confirmed it.

The declassified State Dept 'NYET' cable to US Embassey in Russia, testified to the Red Lines.

The evidence are overwhelming already.

NATO is an open door organization, If Russia wants to join, Russia will have to change a lot of things like improving rights among other reforms that guides liberal democracies of the west. that.

See yourself? Pls tell me about liberal democracy in Turkey, the Baltic states and others with their post-Soviet style ideologies still intact, etc. So much for your liberal democracy. Stop being an apologist. NATO don't give a dime about democracy, else the likes of Turkey would have no business in it.
Russia was never going to get into the bloc because she was one of the reasons it was created. Russia was, still is, and is always going to be a NATO foe. Let that sink in!

I see you are still struggling to answer the question. Whic and why would NATO want to Invade Russia? in the west NOT invasion. So if we are to take your words as facts, it will only reinforce what NATO is doing which is protecting itself from all threats.

Gaddamit! Just answer who is NATO defending against, yet, you can't give a straight answer, instead, more babylonish rhetorics. Oh! So, the cold war was all about ''containment and deterrence,'' abi? Good! Now, it is trite that the condition precedent for CONTAINMENT and DETERRENCE is borne out of what? SUSPICTION. Thats right! Of what? INVASION. Haha! This was the hallmark of the Cold War. Both sides SUSPICIOUS of one another, then out of FEAR, they move for CONTAINMENT AND DETERRENCE, to CHECKMATE and PREVENT a Possible IMMINENT or FUTURE threat. Is that so?

In other words, Nato sees Soviet/Russia as a threat both during and after the Cold War, that was why she wasn't allowed in, and Russia felt same way, and is wary of NATO at its doorsteps.

So, what are we even arguing about?

Missy89:


The question has been answered already. When the Soviet Union fell and most countries in Eastern Europe became democracies, they joined NATO to guarantee their sovereignty after decades of Russian oppression. The few that continued business as usual are now paying the price i.e Ukraine.

That doesn't mean they are planning to invade Russia.

Crappy delusion, Missy. What democracy? What is the difference between Estonia and Belarus or Moldova and Latvia in their respective governmental administrative set up that make them more democratic? Answer that!

Alot of you keep touting this concept without proper considerations.
The concept of democracy is subject to various ideological and ethical interpretations revolving around the apparatus of belief and cultural consciousness of a given population. That is why what is called a ''democracy'' in Britain, may not be the same in Nigeria, yet both nations operates within that axis of the term ''democracy.'' For instance, in Britain, the socio-political system allows for gays to thrive because to them, it is '' democracy.'' But in Nigeria, the socio-political system criminalizes such acts. Now, going by western concept of democracy, isn't that interpreted as ''undemocratic?''

Anyway, lets forget that.
Now you are implying that Russia want to invade these nations, hence the NATO deployment, abi? In other words, NATO is afraid of an invasion, and its deploying abi? Which then equally denote that Russia is also afraid of an invasion and complaining and threatening. So whats the fuss?

On Ukraine: which price is it paying? Because the Ukraine that we know before 2013, was far better and stronger than the one we have now, even with an economy that fares better compare to some of its formal Soviet neighbors, until your Satan-led America came and forment a coup in the once peaceful land, plunging the nation into the chaos it is today.

Now i know the price it is paying: obey or suffer. Very interesting.

Missy89:


This is why Poland and Romania want to be in NATO.

Poland : Katyn Massacre; Russian government killed all the country's intellectuals and officers in other to occupy the country in 1939
Mass deportations of Polish citizens from their homeland to the East
Arresting Polish leaders, tortured them and killed some of them( Trial of the Sixteen) and forming their own puppet government in Poland.
for over 4 decades
Go and study the history of Poland from 1945–89 and learn from it.

Romania : After promising King Michael that Romania's sovereignty would be respected, The Romanians switch sides and joined the allies. Romanian solders were instead slaughter en mass by the Russians, shot anti communist protesters, had control over the country till the late 1950s,

By the time hostilities between Romania and the Soviet Union ended, Romania's military losses had totaled about 110,000 killed and 180,000 missing or captured; the Red Army also transported about 130,000 Romanian soldiers to the Soviet Union, where many perished in prison camps. After its surrender, Romania committed about fifteen divisions to the Allied cause under Soviet command. Before the end of hostilities against Germany, about 120,000 Romanian troops perished helping the Red Army liberate Czechoslovakia and Hungary. - Library of Congress

Again study Romania's History from the late 40s to the early 50s. Eastern Europeans have learned from their history and realized that only an alliance with a more powerful military can guarantee their independence after the fall of the soviet union. Hopefully, you will answer my question and tell me why the US will want to invade Russia.

I wish the russia hasbara trolls will have some sort of realization that Russia has always been a nasty neighbor and that remains why very few Eastern Europeans trust them and believe in building up their deterrence and defenses.

NairaMinted:
Since Mark Toner and John Kirby haven't been providing any comic relief material lately, let's see what our Ukronazi friends have got to offer



[size=18pt]Crazy Ukrainian Propaganda Claims Exchanged Savchenko Is a Double[/size]
Translated by Ollie Richardson for Fort Russ
29th May, 2016

[img]http://3.bp..com/-rQ0mqaFlo_M/V0re1HETQ8I/AAAAAAAANyU/AqG9rc0LC2w2tvsL6lS1Df09MpAWx07XQCLcB/s1600/13296244_1041742679238718_1101912234_n.jpg[/img]
Tvzvezda




A video edited by unknown Ukrainian "analysts" is gaining popularity on the Internet, in which a terrible secret is revealed – the Savchenko who returned to Kiev is not the real one, and is a double. This was reported by the website "Russian spring".

Allegedly, the real Ukrainian pilot Savchenko died in a Russian prison from hunger. Instead, the one who returned to Ukraine is Arkady Shestitko, who had a sex change operation and tried to achieve maximum similarity with the gun-layer, convicted in Russia for 22 years.

Ukrainian "experts" were initially confused by the Savchenko's new complexion – according to many, after months of hunger strike, she should be somewhat slimmer. However, Internet users have joked repeatedly on the subject. It was also noted by the creators of the video the fact that supposedly the real Savchenko had a slight squint, which is not present with her twin.

The Russian President has pardoned Savchenko on May 25th, 2016, who the Russian court sentenced to 22 years in prison. She was jailed for the murder of VGTRK journalists Anton Voloshin and Igor Kornelyuk in the Donetsk region.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFHJF4ZQzok

This world is a terrible place.

Appleyard:


Nobody is mixing anything here. The problem with your lots on this issues is lack of comprehension, misinterpretation and and mistranslation of what was being said and done.
Now lets take a look:

Goberchev: [b]The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either.[ /b]

Phew! Gorbachev is saying here that ''Nato expansion was NOT BROUGHT UP AT ALL,'' right? Was not brought up BY WHOM? NOT A SINGLE EASTERN EUROPEAN COUNTRY brought up the issue. JESUS! Who were these Eastern European countries? Who made or were privy to the deal signed by Russia and NATO vis the Berlin Wall aftermath? In essence, what Gorbachev is saying here is that, '' no nation in the eastern axis of Europe, including those that were born out from the Warsaw Pact, raised the issue of a NATO expansion family or of joining the alliance, EVEN AFTER THE WARSAW PACT CEASED TO EXIST!
And Western leaders in 1991 never did suggest such expansion motives.

But wait! There was something else..



Blood of Goat! How else could NATO Military structures advance without membership of the alliance? Can't you get it? If you are saying that NATO expansion wasn't at all discussed, but you discussed that it's military structures should not move forward: isn't that an expansion already discussed? Are NATO's military structural establishments and deployments devoid of political configurations? And advancement to where? The East. And the East here simply conote Russia's borders and sphere of infuence (not East Germany per se, as the country was being reunified,) except you can furnished a Voodoo map showing Eastern Germany bordering Russia right now.

This much was what Gorbachev was saying, and its the same thing that the Formal German minister, Hans Genscher said when he spoke with Shevardnadze. According to the German record of the conversation, which has now been declassified below...

[b]Genscher said: "We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east." And because the conversion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: "As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general."[b]

Call it the nail to the head!

It was clear that Russia was giving every impression on NATO none expansion down Germany and beyond after reunification, a deal that prompted the Soviet withdrawal of 260,000 troops from there.

McGovern, formal CIA official then, confirmed it.

Jack Matlock, US ambassador to Russia then, confirmed it.

The declassified State Dept 'NYET' cable to US Embassey in Russia, testified to the Red Lines.

The evidence are overwhelming already.

Lol

You are dangerously incoherent and uninformed. You are refusing to see thru your bias and smell the coffee.

I will try again maybe it will sink in this time.

The treaty on the final settlement with respect to Germany which the alleged commitment was made was signed in September of 1990. Warsaw pact ceased to exist in July 1991. So if the West promised Russia it wont move eastward, It was talking about East Germany as Gobby pointed out. And what Baker was referring to if you read the article 5 of the treaty is that ( I will quote again) 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.

So, Yes The Soviet military was right beside Germany's borders in 1990 when the treaty was signed. The Baltic states were left out of the negotiations because they were still part of a military bloc and another country . And when they got their independence, they were free to join any alliance they want as they saw fit. Joining NATO actually made a lot of sense because it guarantees their sovereignty from Russia.

So can you see how your timeline doesn't make any sense?


You mentioned Jack Matlock.

This is what he had to say on his website

(1) All the discussions in 1990 regarding the expansion of NATO jurisdiction were in the context of what would happen to the territory of the GDR. There was still a Warsaw Pact. Nobody was talking about NATO and the countries of Eastern Europe. However, the language used did not always make that specific.


(2) The territory of the GDR did come under NATO jurisdiction with Soviet approval, but not totally. As a result of the two plus four negotiations, it was agreed by all parties, including the USSR, that the territory would be part of NATO but that no foreign (non-German) troops would be stationed there. Soviet diplomats who negotiated that agreement have stated since then that they never thought they had commitments regarding Eastern Europe other than the GDR.

http://jackmatlock.com/2014/04/nato-expansion-was-there-a-promise/

We have quotes from Jack Matlock and Gorbachev to confirm this. Thank you for hanging yourself The only evidence you have is from a RT shill McGovern.


The rest of what you wrote is just garbage and it will be a waste of time responding to it.

Missy89:


Lol

You are dangerously incoherent and uninformed. You are refusing to see thru your bias and smell the coffee.

I will try again maybe it will sink in this time.

The treaty on the final settlement with respect to Germany which the alleged commitment was made was signed in September of 1990. Warsaw pact ceased to exist in July 1991. So if the Wwont move eastward, It was talking about East Germany as Gobby pointed out. And what Baker was referring to if you read the article 5 of the treaty is that ( I will quote again) Until Soviet forces had completed their withdrawal from the former GDR, only German territorial defense units not be deployed in that territory.

So, Yes The Soviet military was right beside Germany's borders in 1990 when the treaty was signed. The Baltic states were left out of the negotiations because they were still part of a military bloc and another country . And when they were freey want as they saw fit. Joining NATO actually made a lot of sense because it guarantees their sovereignty from Russia.

So can you see how your timeline doesn't make any sense?


You mentioned Jack Matloche discussions in 1990 regardinnot always make that specific.


(2) The territory of Jack Matlock and Gorbachev to confirm this.

I was right. Lack of comprehension has become a part of your unbridled crash down the isle of the Langley delusion. Honestly, am really disapointed. I always knew you had been living in denial, but this, is just too dumb and puerile for your ego.

Oh, what have you done to my Queen, Amerika.. ;-

Let me try for the last
time to help you again.
And i hope you see in betwixt the lines.

As at 1990, here are the countries of the Warsaw Pact.

Czechosloviaka,
Bulgariaj,
Poland,
East Germany, Romania,
Soviet Union.

Now, the deal that was being made primary centres on East Germany and NATO advancement. If the deal side of the NATO advancement was only limited to East Germany, what sense would it have made since the East is being reunited with the West to become one Germany? A ONE Germany that instantly became a NATO member by virtue of the West side of it that was in the alliance prior to reunification? Now, even if the GDR agreement was to be limited to East Germany alone in terms of NATO's advancement, going forward is still a clear VIOLATION and BETRAYAL of that commitment because, Germany is bordered from the East by Poland and Czech, which are NOT part of the Soviet Union, but Members of the Warsaw Pact, as Independent nations. but which borders Russia. Now, if NATO's advancement and deployment was to be only to the East region of Germany (which is now a one Germany and a NATO member,) why would the Russians worry since they are leaving, and the fact that the East side doesn't share border with Russia but with Poland, an ally which borders Russia from the east? It was CLEAR that the advancement Gorbachev, and many more was talking about, signifies that NATO, in which the new Federal Republic of Germany (since East Germany is no more) is a member, should not advance its structures outside the East (that part of Germany,) and further down the East (into the likes of Poland) that directly borders Russia unlike the East of Germany which have no boundary relationship with the then Soviet Union.
This much was the underlying meaning in what Genscher said..

Genscher spoke with Shevardnadze. According to the German record of the conversation, which was only recently declassified, Genscher said: "We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east." And because the conversion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: "As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general."

This was from a primary party to the deal whom you said was ''a third party''. Hysterical. The tenancity of your incomprehensability is appalling.

Even your Gorbachev have have this to say:

"The Americans promised that Nato wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."

How disappointing, my Love..

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/1933223/Gorbachev-US-could-start-new-Cold-War.html

Yeah!The rest are garbage because they soundly put to rest your lies about NATO's motive towards Russia.

Until you come out of your pigmy-sized shell of mendacity, you will never see things the way they are.

Russia is always an enemy of NATO and NATO is always an enemy of Russia, as long as the cold war mentality prevails and continue to dictate their respective ideology.

Be free Dear Love. You weren't like this, and i don't want you to join them trollers. I luv U, my Queen.

Appleyard:


I was right. Lack of comprehension has become a part of your unbridled crash down the isle of the Langley delusion. Honestly, am really disapointed. I always knew you had been living in denial, but this, is just too dumb and puerile for your ego.

Oh, what have you done to my Queen, Amerika.. ;-

Let me try for the last
time to help you again.
And i hope you see in betwixt the lines.

As at 1990, here are the countries of the Warsaw Pact.

Czechosloviaka,
Bulgariaj,
Poland,
East Germany, Romania,
Soviet Union.

Now, the deal that was being made primary centres on East Germany and NATO advancement. If the deal side of the NATO advancement was only limited to East Germany, what sense would it have made since the East is being reunited with the West to become one Germany? A ONE Germany that instantly became a NATO member by virtue of the West side of it that was in the alliance prior to reunification? Now, even if the GDR agreement was to be limited to East Germany alone in terms of NATO's advancement, going forward is still a clear VIOLATION and BETRAYAL of that commitment because, Germany is bordered from the East by Poland and Czech, which are NOT part of the Soviet Union, but Members of the Warsaw Pact, as Independent nations. but which borders Russia. Now, if NATO's advancement and deployment was to be only to the East region of Germany (which is now a one Germany and a NATO member,) why would the Russians worry since they are leaving, and the fact that the East side doesn't share border with Russia but with Poland, an ally which borders Russia from the east? It was CLEAR that the advancement Gorbachev, and many more was talking about, signifies that NATO, in which the new Federal Republic of Germany (since East Germany is no more) is a member, should not advance its structures outside the East (that part of Germany,) and further down the East (into the likes of Poland) that directly borders Russia unlike the East of Germany which have no boundary relationship with the then Soviet Union.
This much was the underlying meaning in what Genscher said..

Be free Dear Love. You weren't like this, and i don't want you to join them trollers. I luv U, my Queen.

You are still talking rubbish.

I am surprised you are still arguing blindly really . When the treaty was signed. The Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact were still intact. What the Russians wanted is no military deployment in East Germany and none was deployed there until the soviet Union collapsed.

So how can you say Gorbachev meant no structures outside the east AND FURTHER DOWN EAST So are you implying that Gorbachev predicted the fall of the soviet union and the Warsaw pact before it happened and asked for a guarantee before the event? Does this even sound intelligent to you at all?

The Russians controlled the Polish military till the early 90s and had troops there up until 1993 (Northern Group of Forces) Armed with nukes. So you are telling me Gorbachev foresaw the soviet withdrawal from Poland in 1993 and asked for assurances of the west not moving east in 1990? Really?

I showed you a direct quote from Gorbachev himself saying that what they talked about was EAST GERMANY. You are inventing your own prove an theory. I typical crank debating tactics. So we should disregard what the Preisdent of the Soviet union said who should be in a good position to know what actually happened?