Secretary Baker in 1990 No extension of NATO "one inch to the east" what could go wrong?

[BobBKK]

5 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

Quite, putting political differences aside - anyone supporting Putin is supporting the deaths of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and civillians!

 

That's what this comes down to - the leaders, politicians and the military can say what they like, make any excuses they so wish. At the end of the day its soldiers and civillians that pay with their lives - not the leaders.  In this case, pay for what? Whether you accept Putin's excuses or not, the fact is that Ukraine showed no aggression. The only ongoing conflict at the time was within Ukraine's borders and that was stirred up by Russia in the first place.

 

Those of you who support Putin must always remember that you are supporting death. I doubt any of you would have the same feelings if that death was closer to home.

 

What a lesson in nonsense. I'll rephrase it for you:

"Those of you who support the lies and misinformation must always remember that you are supporting death. I doubt any of you would have the same feelings if that death was closer to home"

[SpaceKadet]

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

 If you cannot understand the example of a 'sovereign nation' and its context, then you are not used to debates, and I am wasting my time.

Maybe you should educate yourself on the definition of "sovereign state".

According to Wikipedia:

 

"A sovereign state is a state that has the highest authority over a territory.

International law defines sovereign states as having a permanent population, defined territory, a government not under another, and the capacity to interact with other states." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state

 

Unless, of course, if you're Chinese and subscribe to CCP propaganda.

[MangoKorat]

6 hours ago, BobBKK said:

It may have escaped your attention but 1990 was 34 years ago and the world was a different place. Russia was it seemed, under Gorbachev, ready to 'come in from the cold' and move towards fully participating in peaceful relations with the rest of the world. The Soviet Union fell officially in 1991 and for a few years it seemed like Russia would become a truly democratic country, fully participating in world affairs.

 

However, there were fortunes to be made from the break up of the USSR and that would never be allowed to happen in a truly democratic society. 'Perestroika' and 'Glasnost' began under Grobachev and continued under Yeltsin who actually wanted it to go further. Yeltsin initially made Putin Prime Minister in 1999 and so began Russia's pathway to the authoritarian dictatorship, masquerading as a democracy, that it is today. The short lived 'good relations' with 'The West' was over.

 

Interestingly, Yelstin is said to have confided in those closest to him that he made a big mistake in making Putin Prime Minister - possibly the understatement of the millenium!

 

Whatever, you cannot compare the relationship between 'The West' & NATO and Russia in 1994 with what exists today.

Edited June 24 by MangoKorat

[transam]

23 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 

What a lesson in nonsense. I'll rephrase it for you:

"Those of you who support the lies and misinformation must always remember that you are supporting death. I doubt any of you would have the same feelings if that death was closer to home"

You're a Red supporter, end of story, can't think outside your Red bubble........

[MangoKorat]

26 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 

What a lesson in nonsense. I'll rephrase it for you:

"Those of you who support the lies and misinformation must always remember that you are supporting death. I doubt any of you would have the same feelings if that death was closer to home"

Oh, so thousands of people have not died and Russia didn't invade Ukriane, its all 'misinformation?  Thanks for setting me straight, I'll sleep easier tonight knowing there is no war going on in Ukraine.

 

Quite frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself!

[Will B Good]

NATO hasn't 'expanded'!

 

Countries fearful of an out of control, totally corrupt dictator, prepared to slaughter thousands of his own citizens has persuaded them to join NATO for their own security.

[BobBKK]

17 hours ago, Will B Good said:

NATO hasn't 'expanded'!

 

Countries fearful of an out of control, totally corrupt dictator, prepared to slaughter thousands of his own citizens has persuaded them to join NATO for their own security.

 Seriously? LOL

[Will B Good]

6 hours ago, BobBKK said:

 Seriously? LOL

So which countries were forced against their will to join NATO?

[BobBKK]

45 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

So which countries were forced against their will to join NATO?

 This is so naive and embarrassing that it's just not worth commenting on - just lamenting.

[rice555]

On 6/24/2024 at 2:06 PM, BobBKK said:

I think the evidence is clear. Ukraine was allowed to break away on condition of NO NATO.

A little-known fact for you - Zelensky was elected on a "Peace in Donbas ticket' after overthrowing the democratically elected president guided by Nuland and the CIA - cookies all around! Zelensky then went on to bomb Donbas, increasing the daily shelling from 5,000 to 13,000 from 2014 to 2022. It's an inconvenient truth.

You forgot that Aelensky(remember he banned "Z's to be used),

had to learn to speak Ukrainian as he was brought up as a Native Russian speaker. 

I saw a VDO on 4-chan of the green shirt man playing the piano in

his club act, you might call him a gifted slonger. 

[jayceenik]

On 6/24/2024 at 5:32 PM, MangoKorat said:

Quite, putting political differences aside - anyone supporting Putin is supporting the deaths of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands, of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers and civillians!

 

That's what this comes down to - the leaders, politicians and the military can say what they like, make any excuses they so wish. At the end of the day its soldiers and civillians that pay with their lives - not the leaders.  In this case, pay for what? Whether you accept Putin's excuses or not, the fact is that Ukraine showed no aggression. The only ongoing conflict at the time was within Ukraine's borders and that was stirred up by Russia in the first place.

 

Those of you who support Putin must always remember that you are supporting death. I doubt any of you would have the same feelings if that death was closer to home.

I support Putin 100%.

LOL that I'm all that bad you say I must remember😀

 

 

 

 

[Gweiloman]

11 hours ago, jayceenik said:

I support Putin 100%.

LOL that I'm all that bad you say I must remember😀

 

 

 

 

She’s cuter than my ex 😁

[rabas]

On 7/1/2024 at 9:36 AM, jayceenik said:

I support Putin 100%.

LOL that I'm all that bad you say I must remember😀

 

 

 

 

 

I fully support Ukraine 125%!  (I also support Russia and Russians, just not butcher Vlad)

 

If you want to know the difference, she will explain...

 

[BobBKK]

13 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

I fully support Ukraine 125%!  (I also support Russia and Russians, just not butcher Vlad)

 

If you want to know the difference, she will explain...

 

 How can anyone support anything more than 100%?  asking for a friend

BTW when I was in Kiev they all spoke Russian - maybe that's changed because of new laws but years ago this was the case.

[jayceenik]

On 7/2/2024 at 4:15 PM, rabas said:

 

I fully support Ukraine 125%!  (I also support Russia and Russians, just not butcher Vlad)

 

If you want to know the difference, she will explain...

 

Born to a Ukrainian Jewish family, Zelenskyy grew up as a native Russian speaker in Kryvyi Rih, a major city of Dnipropetrovsk Oblast in central Ukraine.

Different mentality, eh?

 

[Njoku]

On 6/24/2024 at 1:17 PM, billd766 said:

So if a politician said something 34 years ago, it is still sacrosanct today and can NEVER be changed.

 

I suppose that would be correct IF the world was exactly the same as it was 34 years ago, but it isn't.

 

34 years ago Russia was in a mess, breaking up and the East European states and their peoples were choosing to side with Russia or go to the West.

 

Russia had not annexed any part of the Ukraine and the Ukraine still had Russian nuclear missiles on their soil.

 

NATO was much smaller then.

 

Poland was not even a member of NATO.

 

East Germany was being reunited with West Germany, the Berlin Wall had been demolished and the Iron Curtain between the East and the West was being dismantled.

 

Putin was not president of Russia.

 

Yet you believe that what one person said 34 years ago is current today in a completely different world to then.

 

 

The expansion of Nato didnt start 2 ys ago, by 1999 3 ex Soviet republics joined Nato, and then the rush started.

[tgw]

On 6/24/2024 at 12:03 PM, BobBKK said:

 

The document talks about the "extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO" - within Germany. It's pretty clear from the way the sentence is constructed and from the wording.

And that guarantee has been fulfilled, NATO didn't extend its jurisdiction within Germany to the East at that time.

 

What the document and the conversation was not about is other countries joining NATO.

[ballpoint]

I know cartoons are frowned upon in these discussions, but this one is entirely relevant, and sums up the situation perfectly:

[pegman]

On 8/19/2024 at 12:59 PM, tgw said:

 

The document talks about the "extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO" - within Germany. It's pretty clear from the way the sentence is constructed and from the wording.

And that guarantee has been fulfilled, NATO didn't extend its jurisdiction within Germany to the East at that time.

 

What the document and the conversation was not about is other countries joining NATO.

That's utter nonsense:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_in_Russia_regarding_the_legitimacy_of_eastward_NATO_expansion#:~:text=So%2C on February 9%2C 1990,at a meeting with Soviet

[orang37]

On 6/24/2024 at 5:39 AM, BobBKK said:

I doubt any of you would have the same feelings if that death was closer to home"

I visited a country near Ukraine, asked people what they feel, surprisingly the feeling of an unjust war isn't that strong among the people. I felt like it was more like 50/50 even if the war is literally happening next door to their country 

[tgw]

9 hours ago, pegman said:

That's utter nonsense:   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy_in_Russia_regarding_the_legitimacy_of_eastward_NATO_expansion#:~:text=So%2C on February 9%2C 1990,at a meeting with Soviet

 

please read in detail the article you linked.
the whole "historical context" part only makes sense if they were talking about the eastern part of Germany, and not about preventing other countries from joining NATO

 

 

[Cameroni]

On 8/19/2024 at 7:59 PM, tgw said:

 

The document talks about the "extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO" - within Germany. It's pretty clear from the way the sentence is constructed and from the wording.

And that guarantee has been fulfilled, NATO didn't extend its jurisdiction within Germany to the East at that time.

 

What the document and the conversation was not about is other countries joining NATO.

 

Lol, what a truly ridiculous argument. The body of evidence that Warren Christopher, James Baker, Genscher etc repeatedly promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastwards is so substantial and voluminous, and so well documented, one can only laugh at your totally ridiculous statement.

 

 

[tgw]

5 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Lol, what a truly ridiculous argument. The body of evidence that Warren Christopher, James Baker, Genscher etc repeatedly promised Russia that NATO would not expand eastwards is so substantial and voluminous, and so well documented, one can only laugh at your totally ridiculous statement.

 

you are being ridiculous.
the context was reunification of Germany, and the discussions and documents repeatedly reference "NATO jurisdiction", which only makes sense within Germany.
Because, obviously, very obviously, so obviously that it's obvious for anyone - except for pro-Ruzzian trolls - there cannot be any "NATO jurisdiction" except within NATO members. QED.

Edited August 31 by tgw

[Cameroni]

3 hours ago, tgw said:

 

you are being ridiculous.
the context was reunification of Germany, and the discussions and documents repeatedly reference "NATO jurisdiction", which only makes sense within Germany.
Because, obviously, very obviously, so obviously that it's obvious for anyone - except for pro-Ruzzian trolls - there cannot be any "NATO jurisdiction" except within NATO members. QED.

 

The ignorance is astounding. 

 

"When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July 1991, Woerner told the Russians that “We should not allow […] the isolation of the USSR from the European community.” According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, “Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view).” (See Document 30)

 

The declassified U.S. account of one key conversation on October 22, 1993, (Document 😎 shows Secretary of State Warren Christopher assuring Yeltsin in Moscow that the Partnership for Peace was about including Russia together with all European countries, not creating a new membership list of just some European countries for NATO; 

 

But Christopher had told Kozyrev himself earlier that day, according to the U.S. declassified cable (Document 7), that there would be “no predetermined new members” in NATO, and “we’re emphasizing the Partnership for Peace” is “open to all.”

 

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard

 

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

 

So not "NATO jurisdiction" but clear cut promises there would be no NATO expansion eastwards and that Russia would be included in a Paternership for Peace, the new security architecture, which was open to all, including Russia, supposedly.

 

In fact Russia was misled, lied to and all promises were broken later.

 

 

[tgw]

5 hours ago, Cameroni said:

 

The ignorance is astounding. 

 

"When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July 1991, Woerner told the Russians that “We should not allow […] the isolation of the USSR from the European community.” According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, “Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view).” (See Document 30)

 

The declassified U.S. account of one key conversation on October 22, 1993, (Document 😎 shows Secretary of State Warren Christopher assuring Yeltsin in Moscow that the Partnership for Peace was about including Russia together with all European countries, not creating a new membership list of just some European countries for NATO; 

 

But Christopher had told Kozyrev himself earlier that day, according to the U.S. declassified cable (Document 7), that there would be “no predetermined new members” in NATO, and “we’re emphasizing the Partnership for Peace” is “open to all.”

 

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard

 

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

 

So not "NATO jurisdiction" but clear cut promises there would be no NATO expansion eastwards and that Russia would be included in a Paternership for Peace, the new security architecture, which was open to all, including Russia, supposedly.

 

In fact Russia was misled, lied to and all promises were broken later.

 

now you are moving goalposts.

 

so I assume you accepted my correct interpretation of the guarantees given prior to the reunification of Germany.

let's turn the pages of the schoolbook to why European and NATO doors progressively closed on Putin.

 

regarding the contents of your post I am quoting now, what you say is correct, and NATO was quite open to a partnership with Russia. there was indeed no list of countries, etc.  everyone was quite open to welcome a democratic Russia in the community.
 

during the Yetzin phase there was much hope for a partnership with the CIS / ex-Soviet states, despite Russia's rather ambivalent role during the war in Yugoslavia.
but that definitely changed when Putin came to power, for the most part it changed because of how he got into power, and what he did with that power.

By the year 2000, Western and ex-Soviet states leaders already had a pretty clear idea of who Putin is and knew about some things he had done, which put an end to all hopes of a harmonious cooperation, and which also prompted most of Russia's ex-Soviet neighbors to want to join NATO because they felt the looming threat.
Unfortunately, Western leaders didn't have a clear idea of what else Putin was up to.

 

There are some great broadcasts available on youtube about exactly that subject. unfortunately, I didn't save the URLs

[Cameroni]

11 minutes ago, tgw said:

 

now you are moving goalposts.

 

so I assume you accepted my correct interpretation of the guarantees given prior to the reunification of Germany.

let's turn the pages of the schoolbook to why European and NATO doors progressively closed on Putin.

 

regarding the contents of your post I am quoting now, what you say is correct, and NATO was quite open to a partnership with Russia. there was indeed no list of countries, etc.  everyone was quite open to welcome a democratic Russia in the community.
 

during the Yetzin phase there was much hope for a partnership with the CIS / ex-Soviet states, despite Russia's rather ambivalent role during the war in Yugoslavia.
but that definitely changed when Putin came to power, for the most part it changed because of how he got into power, and what he did with that power.

By the year 2000, Western and ex-Soviet states leaders already had a pretty clear idea of who Putin is and knew about some things he had done, which put an end to all hopes of a harmonious cooperation, and which also prompted most of Russia's ex-Soviet neighbors to want to join NATO because they felt the looming threat.
Unfortunately, Western leaders didn't have a clear idea of what else Putin was up to.

 

There are some great broadcasts available on youtube about exactly that subject. unfortunately, I didn't save the URLs

Who's "moving goalposts"? No, your "intepretation" was total misinformation. "Nato jurisdiciton" was just a red herring. There were clear statements that  NATO would not expand eastwards.

 

"Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” 

 

 

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

 

That's just one example. The only reason why NATO did not expand eastwards all at once was because that would have prepcipated a confrontation with Russia much earlier, since they made it clear from 1989 that any expansion eastwards by NATO was wholly unacceptable. That's why NATO did this by stealth, creepingly, slowly, to avoid confrontation with Russia for as long as possible.

 

The real confrontation did not happen because of Putin. What did Putin do that was so bad allegedly? Implement Western economic reforms? Assist the US with their space exploration programme? Keep his word on German reunification? 

 

The real reason was that in 2008 the NATO conference in Bucharest, Romania dropped all pretence and formally declared Ukraine and Georgia will become NATO members. THEN it was totally clear that the West had been lying all along. That it never intended to include Russia in a post unification reshaping of the security framework. Rather America and its allies would pursue a slow encircling tactic and expand NATO eastwards, ie do precisely that what Russia had warned was a line in the sand, and which the West had hitherto said it would not do.

 

It wasn't Putin at all. It was the West.

Edited August 31 by Cameroni

[candide]

11 hours ago, tgw said:

 

now you are moving goalposts.

 

so I assume you accepted my correct interpretation of the guarantees given prior to the reunification of Germany.

let's turn the pages of the schoolbook to why European and NATO doors progressively closed on Putin.

 

regarding the contents of your post I am quoting now, what you say is correct, and NATO was quite open to a partnership with Russia. there was indeed no list of countries, etc.  everyone was quite open to welcome a democratic Russia in the community.
 

during the Yetzin phase there was much hope for a partnership with the CIS / ex-Soviet states, despite Russia's rather ambivalent role during the war in Yugoslavia.
but that definitely changed when Putin came to power, for the most part it changed because of how he got into power, and what he did with that power.

By the year 2000, Western and ex-Soviet states leaders already had a pretty clear idea of who Putin is and knew about some things he had done, which put an end to all hopes of a harmonious cooperation, and which also prompted most of Russia's ex-Soviet neighbors to want to join NATO because they felt the looming threat.
Unfortunately, Western leaders didn't have a clear idea of what else Putin was up to.

 

There are some great broadcasts available on youtube about exactly that subject. unfortunately, I didn't save the URLs

It confirms the decline of the Soviet Union, then Russia, governed by incompetent leaders (in particular Putin).

 

These countries had historical relations with Russia, their culture has some common features with the Russian culture, and many people were able to speak Russian. Yet, their first concern was to get rid of any Russian influence (Russian influence usually meaning Russian domination). The failed Russian model is attractive to no one.

 

Russia's importance in the world has been declining and it's an economic dwarf. That's the reality! Instead of a leader who is whining about it, they should have had governments aiming at developing the country (like China did).

 

 

 

[Cameroni]

13 minutes ago, candide said:

It confirms the decline of the Soviet Union, then Russia, governed by incompetent leaders (in particular Putin).

 

These countries had historical relations with Russia, their culture has some common features with the Russian culture, and many people were able to speak Russian. Yet, their first concern was to get rid of any Russian influence (Russian influence usually meaning Russian domination). The failed Russian model is attractive to no one.

 

Russia's importance in the world has been declining and it's an economic dwarf. That's the reality! Instead of a leader who is whining about it, they should have had governments aiming at developing the country (like China did).

 

 

 

You're getting a bit carried away with the frothing at the mouth there. Of course communism has failed and nobody wants it.

 

However, Putin has been the greatest statesmen of our time. He has not only steered Russia through the most difficult challenges, which would have broken any other Western leader but he has ensured Russia can thrive. Her economy now is booming precisely because Putin spent years in austerity to save, to ensure when he launched his war against Ukraine he could buy off the populace and pay for the required expenses. The long game Putin is playing is sheer genius.

 

So is the way he conducts the Ukraine war. He knows, given the economic superiority of Russia, he can just take his time. He does not need to take undue risks, like Ukraine has done out of desperation with Kursk. If Russia doesn't take Pokrovsk before Winter...okay, they'll take it in Spring. There is no rush. Ukraine is spending 38% of GDP on the war, Russia 5.9 % of GDP.

 

Putin's achievements are tremendous and his conduct of the Ukraine war is that of a master chess player.

 

Plus, he knows, should things go sideways he can use nuclear weapons. He can't lose.

[candide]

45 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

You're getting a bit carried away with the frothing at the mouth there. Of course communism has failed and nobody wants it.

 

However, Putin has been the greatest statesmen of our time. He has not only steered Russia through the most difficult challenges, which would have broken any other Western leader but he has ensured Russia can thrive. Her economy now is booming precisely because Putin spent years in austerity to save, to ensure when he launched his war against Ukraine he could buy off the populace and pay for the required expenses. The long game Putin is playing is sheer genius.

 

So is the way he conducts the Ukraine war. He knows, given the economic superiority of Russia, he can just take his time. He does not need to take undue risks, like Ukraine has done out of desperation with Kursk. If Russia doesn't take Pokrovsk before Winter...okay, they'll take it in Spring. There is no rush. Ukraine is spending 38% of GDP on the war, Russia 5.9 % of GDP.

 

Putin's achievements are tremendous and his conduct of the Ukraine war is that of a master chess player.

 

Plus, he knows, should things go sideways he can use nuclear weapons. He can't lose.

Very funny!

 

Russia's GDP is around the size of Italy's GDP (when the price if energy is high), and there was no GDP growth between 2012 and 2022. The Russian population has also been strongly declining. Putin is an incompetent leader obsessed by past glory rather than the development of his country. See how China, which started at a much lower development level, has outsmarted Russia.

 

As the FT article you linked previously has shown, the current GDP growth is fuelled by military-related expenses:

"The Russian finance ministry estimates that war-related fiscal stimulus in 2022-23 was equivalent to around 10 per cent of GDP. In that same period, war-related industrial output has risen 35 per cent while civilian production has remained flat, according to research published by the Bank of Finland Institute for Emerging Economies."

https://www.ft.com/content/d304a182-997d-4dae-98a1-aa7c691526db

[Bkk Brian]

12 hours ago, Cameroni said:

Who's "moving goalposts"? No, your "intepretation" was total misinformation. "Nato jurisdiciton" was just a red herring. There were clear statements that  NATO would not expand eastwards.

 

"Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” 

 

 

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

 

That's just one example. The only reason why NATO did not expand eastwards all at once was because that would have prepcipated a confrontation with Russia much earlier, since they made it clear from 1989 that any expansion eastwards by NATO was wholly unacceptable. That's why NATO did this by stealth, creepingly, slowly, to avoid confrontation with Russia for as long as possible.

 

The real confrontation did not happen because of Putin. What did Putin do that was so bad allegedly? Implement Western economic reforms? Assist the US with their space exploration programme? Keep his word on German reunification? 

 

The real reason was that in 2008 the NATO conference in Bucharest, Romania dropped all pretence and formally declared Ukraine and Georgia will become NATO members. THEN it was totally clear that the West had been lying all along. That it never intended to include Russia in a post unification reshaping of the security framework. Rather America and its allies would pursue a slow encircling tactic and expand NATO eastwards, ie do precisely that what Russia had warned was a line in the sand, and which the West had hitherto said it would not do.

 

It wasn't Putin at all. It was the West.

It wasn't Putin at all. It was the West.

 

I thought the wee little dictator only wanted to join on his terms? Here's what he said..........

 

‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”  

 

Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule

Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.

George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/04/ex-nato-head-says-putin-wanted-to-join-alliance-early-on-in-his-rule