Well they really want to bring back Soviet nostalgia eh..
Ukrainian War Developments
- Thread starter james smith esq
- Start date
- Status
WHY THERE IS A WAR IN UKRAINE? Read this 1997 article of the New York Times, as if it was written just yesterday, explaining how Russia wrongly believed the United States.
THE ANATOMY OF A MISUNDERSTANDING and false promises over NATO No-Eastward Expansion.
The day Russia will understand what Iran realised long ago (that is, not to rely on Europe, a US-dominated continent), it will free itself and prosper. "We leave it all to the discretion and conscience of our Western colleagues. We have never used Oil & Gas as weapons," said Sergei Lavrov.
When the world institutions have no real power; When the United Nations have no authority; When any country is allowed for decades to do anything in its power to keep its dominance; The result is total chaos and no world order. We need laws valid for all and not twisted when suitable. ~ Elijah J. Magnier
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
THE ANATOMY OF A MISUNDERSTANDING
By MICHAEL R. GORDON | The New York Times
Published: May 25, 1997
THE date was Feb. 8, 1990. Secretary of State James Addison Baker III was meeting privately with Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the General Secretary of the Soviet Union, over the emotionally charged issue of German reunification.
Mr. Baker's goal was to keep Germany in NATO. It was a difficult sell, and he used all of his celebrated skills of persuasion. A neutral Germany, he warned ominously, would be free to develop nuclear weapons. Besides, he added, the West was prepared to offer Moscow an important assurance.
''There would be no extension of NATO's current jurisdiction eastward,'' Mr. Baker said, choosing his words with lawyerly precision.
More than seven years later, that meeting casts a shadow over Russia's dealings with NATO as the military alliance prepares to expand to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Evincing a bitter sense of betrayal, former and current Russian officials say the expansion flatly contradicts Mr. Baker's assurances.
''When we were told during the German reunification process that NATO would not expand, we believed it,'' Anatoly Adamishin, a former deputy foreign minister who is Russia's Ambassador to Britain, complained to The Daily Telegraph.
Nor are the Russians the only ones who say Washington switched signals.
''When Gorbachev and others say that it is their understanding NATO expansion would not happen, there is a basis for it,'' Jack F. Matlock Jr., the United States Ambassador to Moscow at the time, said in a telephone interview.
The dispute made it all the more important, Russians say, to pin down the West's latest assurances in the new NATO-Russian accord, named the Founding Act, which sets the terms for the alliance's expansion. It is to be signed in Paris on Tuesday.
But did the United States really pull a fast one on the Russians? And will the much heralded NATO-Russia accord put an end to the complaints of broken promises?
Philip Zelikow, a former National Security Council aide and co-author of ''Germany Unified and Europe Transformed,'' a history of the diplomacy of German reunification, provided a surprising answer.
Mr. Zelikow said that close scrutiny of the verbal diplomatic exchange does not support Moscow's claim that it was bamboozled. But the new written agreement, he cautioned, may cause new disagreements because its commitments are already being interpreted differently by the two sides.
To unravel the debate, rewind the diplomatic tape to 1990. The Berlin Wall had fallen. The Soviet Union was intact. West Germany's leaders were eager to unify with East Germany.
Seeking to ease Soviet anxieties, West Germany's Foreign Minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, urged the West to offer Moscow a major concession: If Germany reunified, there would be ''no expansion of NATO territory eastward.''
Mr. Genscher sold Secretary Baker on the idea, and Mr. Baker flew to Moscow that February to try it on Mr. Gorbachev. The Soviet leader was receptive, according to Mr. Zelikow's authoritative account:
''Any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable,'' Mr. Gorbachev stressed. ''I agree,'' Mr. Baker responded.
That, however, was not the end. Almost immediately, the White House had second thoughts about the Genscher plan.
The concession would preclude NATO from stationing forces in the former East Germany, within the reunified Germany. That, aides at the National Security Council argued, was at cross purposes with NATO's obligation to defend its members' territory against a potential Soviet attack.
Before Mr. Baker had even left Moscow, the White House instructed him to pursue a different plan: All German territory would be in NATO. East German territory would not be demilitarized. But as a concession to Russia, only German forces would be stationed there. Mr. Gorbachev eventually agreed to the new arrangements.
BUT WHAT OF THE BROADER ISSUE OF NATO EXPANSION?
Mr. Matlock said the Russians have a point when they say Mr. Gorbachev received a blanket promise that NATO would not expand. Mr. Baker, he said, never formally retracted the pledge that NATO's ''jurisdiction'' would not extend eastward. The arrangements on Germany were simply an exception to a more general rule.
Mr. Baker adamantly rejects this view. He said he never intended to rule out the admission of new NATO members. The proposal on NATO jurisdiction had applied only to territory of the former East Germany, the German Democratic Republic, and had been speedily withdrawn.
''I got off the word 'jurisdiction' very quickly,'' Mr. Baker said in a telephone interview. ''I do not recall using it with the Soviets. But let's assume I did use it once or twice. We quickly walked away from it. What defeats this whole argument is that we then insisted on the G.D.R. being in NATO, thereby moving NATO eastward.''
Mr. Zelikow sides with Mr. Baker. He says the United States went over the revised proposal on several later occasions and the Russians never complained. The diplomatic record also shows that the two sides never discussed the possibility of Poland, Hungary or other Central European nations joining NATO. If the Soviets took Mr. Baker's pledge as ruling out the alliance's expansion, they failed to nail it down.
''No Soviet ever said, 'NATO may extend to East Germany but no farther,' '' Mr. Zelikow added.
An Act of Compromise
The allegations of broken promises have colored the negotiations for a new NATO-Russia accord. Not wanting to give the Russians a veto over NATO policy, the United States took the position that the agreement should be a non-binding ''charter.'' Eager to pin the West down, the Russians insisted on a formal, legal ''agreement.''
The compromise was the FOUNDING ACT, a legally non-binding agreement at the highest political level. It records the alliance's assurances not to deploy nuclear weapons or ''substantial'' numbers of foreign troops on the territory of its new members.
Playing to their public, American officials have stressed that the new accord merely codifies NATO military plans, which the alliance is free to change. They say it gives Moscow a voice, but does not enable Russia to tie the West's hands.
But Russian officials have talked about the ''binding character'' of the agreement. They emphasize their expectation that important issues will be brought to a new NATO-Russian Council that will operate by consensus.
Defenders of the accord insist that Russian officials are not so much challenging the substance of the agreement as engaging in spin control to soothe public opinion and win approval by the Communist-dominated Parliament.
But critics say the agreement papers over deeper differences, which will come to haunt the diplomats. ''There is enormous potential for misunderstanding,'' Mr. Zelikow said.
In the meantime, it appears that the public posturing over the new accord will go on. Sergei Yastrzhembsky, the Kremlin spokesman, warned last week that the CONFLICTING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE ACCORD WILL NOT END WITH ITS SIGNING. Putting it into effect will not be easy, he said.
Photo: Secretary of State James Addison Baker III quickly withdrew the United States' offer in 1990 not to station NATO troops further east, but he remained fishing buddies with Soviet leaders. Here he's with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze. (Associated Press)
Americans believe they could get away with blanket bans because they think there are no alternatives.
Yellen Rejects Notion Sanctions Could Undermine Dollar Dominance
(Bloomberg) -- Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the U.S. dollar is in no danger of losing its status as the world’s dominant reserve currency as a result of sanctions imposed against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.
“I don’t think the dollar has any serious competition, and is not likely to for a long time,” Yellen told reporters in response to questions following a speech in Denver on Friday.
Some commentators, including Credit Suisse Group AG interest-rate strategist Zoltan Pozsar, have warned sanctions that blocked Russia’s access to its foreign currency reserves could drive other countries away from the dollar.
“When you think about what makes the dollar a reserve currency, it’s that we have the deepest and most liquid capital markets of any country on earth,” Yellen said. “Treasury securities are safe, secure and immensely liquid. We have a well-functioning economic and financial system and the rule of law. There really is no other currency that can rival it as a reserve currency.”
Yellen Rejects Notion Sanctions Could Undermine Dollar Dominance
(Bloomberg) -- Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said the U.S. dollar is in no danger of losing its status as the world’s dominant reserve currency as a result of sanctions imposed against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine.
“I don’t think the dollar has any serious competition, and is not likely to for a long time,” Yellen told reporters in response to questions following a speech in Denver on Friday.
Some commentators, including Credit Suisse Group AG interest-rate strategist Zoltan Pozsar, have warned sanctions that blocked Russia’s access to its foreign currency reserves could drive other countries away from the dollar.
“When you think about what makes the dollar a reserve currency, it’s that we have the deepest and most liquid capital markets of any country on earth,” Yellen said. “Treasury securities are safe, secure and immensely liquid. We have a well-functioning economic and financial system and the rule of law. There really is no other currency that can rival it as a reserve currency.”
European Jihad... and a desire to play real-life Call of Duty
Last edited:
Just as what stated in the article by ("Club Orlov") at the end of February 2022.
Sentient AI drone + biomech weapon carriers which could source ad hoc fuel? Please stop now, you are giving me a wargasm.
Ambushed Russian unit. Ukrainian forces about 30 meters away from the Russian convoy..
Yellen lied about inflation to push the nearly $2 trillion spending bill through congress and she also lied about the US having tools to fight inflation. Kinda like Powell to.
Truthfully, it’s very unlikely Yellen or Powell doesn’t actually know what’s gonna happen. They almost certainly know the consequences but it’s their jobs to lie and not create panic. However, their elitist friends probably knows already.
Hard to say. Sometime when you lied so often, you started to believe in your own lies.
Many Europeans think Russia would be doomed in a few weeks. But they need first to deal with the refugees crisis. 4 millions are just the start.
China's first batch of humanitarian aid arrives in Ukraine
By Global Times Published: Mar 12, 2022 10:19 AM
The Red Cross Society of China sent a batch of emergency humanitarian aid to Ukraine on March 9, 2022. Photo: from Beijing Daily
China's first batch of humanitarian assistance to Ukraine has arrived in the western Ukrainian city Chernivtsi. The second batch is expected to depart from Beijing on Sat and arrive in Ukraine on Mon.
China has provided 5 million yuan worth of materials for humanitarian assistance to Ukraine, which will be sent in batches. Staff of the Red Cross Society of Ukraine has received the first batch of aid.
Aid better used in liberated areas instead of going to Kiev.
- Status