undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgenewitch1y ago0 comments

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/4325...

page 5. also in other documents.

It's ok, it was only declassified 9 years ago.

and if we're going to point at everything trump says and react with gusto - like canadian politicians saying they need to arm themselves with nukes to prevent invasion, just to name one - then i question the validity of "oh they didn't sign it so it doesn't matter" The secretary of state said to Gorbachev multiple times "not one inch to the east" of the "NATO" base in Germany.

But none of this matters, because Ukraine is 250 miles from Moscow, and that's a lot different than the nearly 600 miles away Poland is. the closest nato point to moscow as it stands right now is 350 miles away.

if you can't see the difference, i'm sorry. A big point of contention for Russia is the "Ethnic Russian" portions of Ukraine, near the border, who would "gladly" be part of russia, but because of an arbitrary border, they cannot.

Here's infamous socialist George Galloway explaining it better than i can, and with a better accent: https://noagendaassets.com/enc/1740955477.979_georgegalloway...

0 comments

mopsi1y ago

Baker and Gorbachev talked about the status NATO forces in East Germany until the Soviet withdrawal in 1994. They agreed that only the forces under direct German control would enter East Germany until the last Soviet forces had withdrawn. Their agreement was formalized in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany.

The relevant article:

  ARTICLE 5
  Until the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet armed forces from the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin in accordance with Article 4 of the present Treaty, only German territorial defence units which are not integrated into the alliance structures to which German armed forces in the rest of German territory are assigned will be stationed in that territory as armed forces of the united Germany. During that period and subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article, armed forces of other states will not be stationed in that territory or carry out any other military activity there.

Germany upheld their part of the agreement, the withdrawal went uneventfully, and the agreement was concluded by the end of August 1994.

As you can see, it has nothing to do with whether NATO would accept new members or not. Gorbachev and many other top Soviet/Russian officials have directly refuted this myth, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43149963

genewitchOP1y ago

the link i gave, under _Document 5_, is the transcripts from their conversations.

Where baker said "not one inch east of the Elbe."

I am not sure how much clearer it can be than declassified documents. "That is a lie putin told, it's propaganda!"

no, it's right there. has been available to look at for 9 years.

I really do not give one WHIT what happened afterward, all i care about is refuting falsehoods.

to wit:

A United States Secretary of State named Baker, gave a "cascade of assurances" that NATO would not expand EAST of the Elbe. Repeatedly, the same message was given to the russians.

That is literally all i said. You're arguing something completely different now and like i said, good for you, i don't care. it wasn't what i was talking about or responding to.

mopsi1y ago

There is not a single mention of Elbe in the linked document. However, there are numerous references to the 2+4 agreement, which is the informal name for the treaty I previously cited. That's what they were discussing and that's what they agreed upon. Soviet representatives have confirmed that the discussions were limited solely to the placement of foreign forces in East Germany until the Soviet withdrawal was complete.

As the Soviet foreign minister stated in a 2014 interview, there was simply no reason to discuss NATO beyond that. They did not expect the Warsaw Pact to dissolve. The idea that the world would change so drastically that the Warsaw Pact would dissolve and its members would seek to join NATO was unimaginable at the time.

You are clinging to an erroneous understanding of a few transcript snippets against the words of the direct participants and their actual written agreements.

1 more reply

jxjnskkzxxhx1y ago

Thats a report of a conversation, not a legal agreement. If you want a legal agreement, get it in writing. So like I said it's Putin's propaganda that there was some agreement. Thanks for confirming, I'll be sure to use that link in the future.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

mopsi1y ago

The relevant article:

  ARTICLE 5
  Until the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet armed forces from the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin in accordance with Article 4 of the present Treaty, only German territorial defence units which are not integrated into the alliance structures to which German armed forces in the rest of German territory are assigned will be stationed in that territory as armed forces of the united Germany. During that period and subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article, armed forces of other states will not be stationed in that territory or carry out any other military activity there.

Germany upheld their part of the agreement, the withdrawal went uneventfully, and the agreement was concluded by the end of August 1994.

genewitchOP1y ago

the link i gave, under _Document 5_, is the transcripts from their conversations.

Where baker said "not one inch east of the Elbe."

I am not sure how much clearer it can be than declassified documents. "That is a lie putin told, it's propaganda!"

no, it's right there. has been available to look at for 9 years.

I really do not give one WHIT what happened afterward, all i care about is refuting falsehoods.

to wit:

A United States Secretary of State named Baker, gave a "cascade of assurances" that NATO would not expand EAST of the Elbe. Repeatedly, the same message was given to the russians.

That is literally all i said. You're arguing something completely different now and like i said, good for you, i don't care. it wasn't what i was talking about or responding to.

mopsi1y ago

You are clinging to an erroneous understanding of a few transcript snippets against the words of the direct participants and their actual written agreements.

1 more reply

jxjnskkzxxhx1y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse