War

[unclefishstick]

every time you make yet another jew hating post i want to slap you with nice pastrami on rye or hurl stale bagels at you

 

[h.h.]

Could always buy a car from his Jewish replacement.

Good luck with the lithium battery !

There was another guy named Jesus Christ who also tried to warn the Gentiles about the Synagogue of Satan.

Of course, on forums, the people defending the crimes of the Jews are often, Jews.

Jews are only criticized when they commit crimes against Gentiles.

There's 99.8% of the population that is Gentile.

Why would a selected Sub-class be given impunity to commit crimes against them ?


Speaking of War, Mel Gibson nailed it with a Blood Alcohol Level above 0.1%.

Jews are responsible for all the wars in the World, or, in the last 100 years.

So your fable of Jesus Christ is better than their fable and thus the prosecution continues. Same reason we helped relocate them in Israel. Because the Christians feign superiority over the Muslims as well.

 

[entropical]

Of course, on forums, the people defending the crimes of the Jews are often, Jews.

Often times it is either that, or a shabbos goy.

 

[armedoldhippy]

It is quite amazing how the liberal fools have been lead by the nose, all under the theme of 'Orange Man Bad'. They now support genocide by vax, loss of liberty , communism, and lately war over a place America has no interest in. All because the corporate tee vee told them to.

This country has been watered down by idiocy. AOH is a classic case IMO.

nobody here wants genocide. liberty is limited, always has been. most folks do right by their neighbors & friends, or USED to. now it is just "ME, ME, ME!" damn few "communist" nations left, maybe none that are truly communist. we have an interest in preventing war in Europe. they have this nasty habit of spreading, like the ignorance you keep spouting. "liberal fools", LOL! registered Republican here, but not a jack-booted right-wing thug marching for The Chump like the brownshirts did for dear ol' uncle Adolph...

 

[armedoldhippy]

every time you make yet another jew hating post i want to slap you with nice pastrami on rye or hurl stale bagels at you

don't forget to overcharge him for them... he REALLY hates that, lol.

 

[unclefishstick]

i really wish some of these characters would just fuck off to reddit or some other hate porn site and do their jerking off to ilsa,she wolf of the ss there

 

[Brother Nature]

please, don't try to think while drunk, and for dang sure don't try to think for others. noticed you did not address any of my points. Russia stated in 2008 (just as they did two days ago) that they were "sending troops back to their bases", then invaded Georgia 8 days later. is the "false flag" excuse for invasion which intelligence has been warning about underway? pro-Russian separatist forces are claiming they are under "heavy artillery fire", but no one else seems to hear any explosions etc. odd, don't you think? i'll believe they are under "attack" when a non-Russian source shows live footage and not until then...i'll repeat - promises made TO an ELECTED official of another country need not be kept when that countries govt is replaced by a non-democratic strongman like Putin. don't bother replying about how he keeps winning "re-election". hard not to win when you ban other parties & imprisoning other candidates. sounds like something The Chump would try to do...

Ha, damn I don't even remember writing that (what you quoted from me).... Thought does definitely go out the window when drunk, it's definitely the only time I ever think of posting in these threads. Guess I could of summed up all I was trying to say with my last line, "I can't see it as ok that any side is fine with the two most egotistical nuclear world powers measuring their dicks at the expense of the rest of us." I still don't think Russia will attack Ukraine unless provoked, but America and NATO is provoking them. I could see things easily turning into WWIII, which would suck for everyone. Neither side is innocent, or in the right to my mind, but I don't see it (fighting Russia/Putin) as an issue that America should be putting at the forefront at this point in time, seems simply like a distraction from everything else going to shit.

 

[Brother Nature]

Can you name the treaty in which your quote is used? No. There is no such promise.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/us/politics/russia-ukraine-james-baker.html

I can't read that times article, it sits behind a paywall, plus I find it hard to trust their reporting after they helped convince the US that it should go to a fruitless war in Iraq. I'm sure it's a well written article that explains the point you're trying to make though, I do enjoy the way it's journalists write.

I was reading through this one, referenced below, which actually contains the de-classified, though heavily re-dacted, documents of those meetings. Regardless of us trying to prove our point to one another, it's a very good article to get a perspective on the situation in Ukraine and the formation of NATO. The documents that the article refers to are also very illuminating and are at the bottom of the page in the link.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-...on-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]

The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3]

This latter idea of special status for the GDR territory was codified in the final German unification treaty signed on September 12, 1990, by the Two-Plus-Four foreign ministers (see Document 25). The former idea about “closer to the Soviet borders” is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures. The two issues were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did.

The “Tutzing formula” immediately became the center of a flurry of important diplomatic discussions over the next 10 days in 1990, leading to the crucial February 10, 1990, meeting in Moscow between Kohl and Gorbachev when the West German leader achieved Soviet assent in principle to German unification in NATO, as long as NATO did not expand to the east. The Soviets would need much more time to work with their domestic opinion (and financial aid from the West Germans) before formally signing the deal in September 1990.

The conversations before Kohl’s assurance involved explicit discussion of NATO expansion, the Central and East European countries, and how to convince the Soviets to accept unification. For example, on February 6, 1990, when Genscher met with British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, the British record showed Genscher saying, “The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.” (See Document 2)

Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face with Gorbachev.

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.” (See Document 6)

Afterwards, Baker wrote to Helmut Kohl who would meet with the Soviet leader on the next day, with much of the very same language. Baker reported: “And then I put the following question to him [Gorbachev]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options [….] He then added, ‘Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’” Baker added in parentheses, for Kohl’s benefit, “By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable.” (See Document 8)

Well-briefed by the American secretary of state, the West German chancellor understood a key Soviet bottom line, and assured Gorbachev on February 10, 1990: “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.” (See Document 9) After this meeting, Kohl could hardly contain his excitement at Gorbachev’s agreement in principle for German unification and, as part of the Helsinki formula that states choose their own alliances, so Germany could choose NATO. Kohl described in his memoirs walking all night around Moscow – but still understanding there was a price still to pay.

All the Western foreign ministers were on board with Genscher, Kohl, and Baker. Next came the British foreign minister, Douglas Hurd, on April 11, 1990. At this point, the East Germans had voted overwhelmingly for the deutschmark and for rapid unification, in the March 18 elections in which Kohl had surprised almost all observers with a real victory. Kohl’s analyses (first explained to Bush on December 3, 1989) that the GDR’s collapse would open all possibilities, that he had to run to get to the head of the train, that he needed U.S. backing, that unification could happen faster than anyone thought possible – all turned out to be correct. Monetary union would proceed as early as July and the assurances about security kept coming. Hurd reinforced the Baker-Genscher-Kohl message in his meeting with Gorbachev in Moscow, April 11, 1990, saying that Britain clearly “recognized the importance of doing nothing to prejudice Soviet interests and dignity.” (See Document 15)

The Baker conversation with Shevardnadze on May 4, 1990, as Baker described it in his own report to President Bush, most eloquently described what Western leaders were telling Gorbachev exactly at the moment: “I used your speech and our recognition of the need to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce a new legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive.” (See Document 17)

Baker said it again, directly to Gorbachev on May 18, 1990 in Moscow, giving Gorbachev his “nine points,” which included the transformation of NATO, strengthening European structures, keeping Germany non-nuclear, and taking Soviet security interests into account. Baker started off his remarks, “Before saying a few words about the German issue, I wanted to emphasize that our policies are not aimed at separating Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union. We had that policy before. But today we are interested in building a stable Europe, and doing it together with you.” (See Document 18)

The French leader Francois Mitterrand was not in a mind-meld with the Americans, quite the contrary, as evidenced by his telling Gorbachev in Moscow on May 25, 1990, that he was “personally in favor of gradually dismantling the military blocs”; but Mitterrand continued the cascade of assurances by saying the West must “create security conditions for you, as well as European security as a whole.” (See Document 19) Mitterrand immediately wrote Bush in a “cher George” letter about his conversation with the Soviet leader, that “we would certainly not refuse to detail the guarantees that he would have a right to expect for his country’s security.” (See Document 20)

At the Washington summit on May 31, 1990, Bush went out of his way to assure Gorbachev that Germany in NATO would never be directed at the USSR: “Believe me, we are not pushing Germany towards unification, and it is not us who determines the pace of this process. And of course, we have no intention, even in our thoughts, to harm the Soviet Union in any fashion. That is why we are speaking in favor of German unification in NATO without ignoring the wider context of the CSCE, taking the traditional economic ties between the two German states into consideration. Such a model, in our view, corresponds to the Soviet interests as well.” (See Document 21)

The “Iron Lady” also pitched in, after the Washington summit, in her meeting with Gorbachev in London on June 8, 1990. Thatcher anticipated the moves the Americans (with her support) would take in the early July NATO conference to support Gorbachev with descriptions of the transformation of NATO towards a more political, less militarily threatening, alliance. She said to Gorbachev: “We must find ways to give the Soviet Union confidence that its security would be assured…. CSCE could be an umbrella for all this, as well as being the forum which brought the Soviet Union fully into discussion about the future of Europe.” (See Document 22)

The NATO London Declaration on July 5, 1990 had quite a positive effect on deliberations in Moscow, according to most accounts, giving Gorbachev significant ammunition to counter his hardliners at the Party Congress which was taking place at that moment. Some versions of this history assert that an advance copy was provided to Shevardnadze’s aides, while others describe just an alert that allowed those aides to take the wire service copy and produce a Soviet positive assessment before the military or hardliners could call it propaganda.

As Kohl said to Gorbachev in Moscow on July 15, 1990, as they worked out the final deal on German unification: “We know what awaits NATO in the future, and I think you are now in the know as well,” referring to the NATO London Declaration. (See Document 23)

In his phone call to Gorbachev on July 17, Bush meant to reinforce the success of the Kohl-Gorbachev talks and the message of the London Declaration. Bush explained: “So what we tried to do was to take account of your concerns expressed to me and others, and we did it in the following ways: by our joint declaration on non-aggression; in our invitation to you to come to NATO; in our agreement to open NATO to regular diplomatic contact with your government and those of the Eastern European countries; and our offer on assurances on the future size of the armed forces of a united Germany – an issue I know you discussed with Helmut Kohl. We also fundamentally changed our military approach on conventional and nuclear forces. We conveyed the idea of an expanded, stronger CSCE with new institutions in which the USSR can share and be part of the new Europe.” (See Document 24)

The documents show that Gorbachev agreed to German unification in NATO as the result of this cascade of assurances, and on the basis of his own analysis that the future of the Soviet Union depended on its integration into Europe, for which Germany would be the decisive actor. He and most of his allies believed that some version of the common European home was still possible and would develop alongside the transformation of NATO to lead to a more inclusive and integrated European space, that the post-Cold War settlement would take account of the Soviet security interests. The alliance with Germany would not only overcome the Cold War but also turn on its head the legacy of the Great Patriotic War.

But inside the U.S. government, a different discussion continued, a debate about relations between NATO and Eastern Europe. Opinions differed, but the suggestion from the Defense Department as of October 25, 1990 was to leave “the door ajar” for East European membership in NATO. (See Document 27) The view of the State Department was that NATO expansion was not on the agenda, because it was not in the interest of the U.S. to organize “an anti-Soviet coalition” that extended to the Soviet borders, not least because it might reverse the positive trends in the Soviet Union. (See Document 26) The Bush administration took the latter view. And that’s what the Soviets heard.

As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, “We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, “Nothing of the sort will happen.” (See Document 28)

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)

Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding NATO. Instead, the dissolution of the USSR was brought about by Russians (Boris Yeltsin and his leading advisory Gennady Burbulis) in concert with the former party bosses of the Soviet republics, especially Ukraine, in December 1991. The Cold War was long over by then. The Americans had tried to keep the Soviet Union together (see the Bush “Chicken Kiev” speech on August 1, 1991). NATO’s expansion was years in the future, when these disputes would erupt again, and more assurances would come to Russian leader Boris Yeltsin.

The Archive compiled these declassified documents for a panel discussion on November 10, 2017 at the annual conference of the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies (ASEEES) in Chicago under the title “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?” The panel included:

* Mark Kramer from the Davis Center at Harvard, editor of the Journal of Cold War Studies, whose 2009 Washington Quarterly article argued that the “no-NATO-enlargement pledge” was a “myth”;[4]

* Joshua R. Itkowitz Shifrinson from the Bush School at Texas A&M, whose 2016 International Security article argued the U.S. was playing a double game in 1990, leading Gorbachev to believe NATO would be subsumed in a new European security structure, while working to ensure hegemony in Europe and the maintenance of NATO;[5]

* James Goldgeier from American University, who wrote the authoritative book on the Clinton decision on NATO expansion, Not Whether But When, and described the misleading U.S. assurances to Russian leader Boris Yeltsin in a 2016 WarOnTheRocks article;[6]

* Svetlana Savranskaya and Tom Blanton from the National Security Archive, whose most recent book, The Last Superpower Summits: Gorbachev, Reagan, and Bush: Conversations That Ended the Cold War (CEU Press, 2016) analyzes and publishes the declassified transcripts and related documents from all of Gorbachev’s summits with U.S. presidents, including dozens of assurances about protecting the USSR’s security interests.[7]

[Today’s posting is the first of two on the subject. The second part will cover the Yeltsin discussions with Western leaders about NATO.]

 

[flylowgethigh]

They are or were talking about the Russians staging a "false flag" attack against themselves, in order to justify their attack on Ukraine as being a counter-attack.

This is the cia smoke screen they will use to blow up Putin's new bridge, which would probably piss him off, cause he didn't do it.

 

[med4u]

Yep...was prolly one of them new stingers the CIA had sent over.....
Russia backed rebels of coarse..pppftt

 

[armedoldhippy]

I still don't think Russia will attack Ukraine unless provoked, but America and NATO is provoking them.

exactly WHAT do you think the US and NATO are doing that "provokes" Russia? is it not allowing them a free hand at annexing neighboring sovereign countries? that's what they have done, and want to continue to do. NATO is ALREADY in countries bordering Russia. 5 different nations belonging to NATO are on Russia's borders, leaving 9 that do not belong to the alliance. which of those threaten Russia? and when did they do so? NATO has offered to remove some missiles in alliance nations to soothe Putins ego/"fears", but he does not want NATO to ever allow a sovereign country to align itself according to what they think makes them safer. utter bullshit. letting Putin dictate who they hang out with (metaphorically) is giving him veto power over their country. if he doesn't want them to try to join NATO, all he has to do is stop threatening them, easy peasy...

 

[armedoldhippy]

They are or were talking about the Russians staging a "false flag" attack against themselves, in order to justify their attack on Ukraine as being a counter-attack.

This is the cia smoke screen they will use to blow up Putin's new bridge, which would probably piss him off, cause he didn't do it.

pro-russian separatists along Russias border with Ukraine earlier today said they were "under heavy artillery fire". if true, i'm betting it was Russian artillery carefully aimed so as to not actually kill any of their "rebels" in Ukraine. you really think the CIA has assets in Russia capable of blowing up a bridge there? you don't think they guard them? you are MUCH further down the rabbit hole than even stempy ever went, lol...

 

[armedoldhippy]

still ignoring the fact that a promise made to a democratically elected leader of a nation need not (SHOULD not) be kept when they are replaced by a "strongman" like Putin...

 

[chilliwilli]

There was another guy named Jesus Christ who also tried to warn the Gentiles about the Synagogue of Satan.

That is total bullshit. Jesus never said that he was not jewish. But he tried to warn us about people who judge others because of their origin.

 

[entropical]

They are or were talking about the Russians staging a "false flag" attack against themselves, in order to justify their attack on Ukraine as being a counter-attack.

This is the cia smoke screen they will use to blow up Putin's new bridge, which would probably piss him off, cause he didn't do it.

They pretend Hitler did the same in Gleiwitz in order to blame him for the second world war. This documentary reveal true history behind the causes and events of the second world war that was hidden by allied war criminals.

https://odysee.com/@TheFascifist:c/The-Untold-Story-of-Danzig-Bromberg:1

 

[44:86N]

When Putin didn't pull the trigger on the Mars Capricorn Ingress (Jan. 24/25), I knew something was up. He missed his chance, if invasion/all out war, is what he wanted.

It looks to my eye like the action is going to pick up right around Feb 25/26 -- though most likely this will be Putin simply keeping the tensions high.

Mars is moving too fast right now, and is lock-step with Venus to boot. Though, Putin is clearly using "resources" as a potential weapon, and this is all about how Putin/Russia VALUE themselves. Putin has been looking for relevancy since before the 2016 election, and since his mole, tRumpty got dumptied, he thinks this is his only option. The Strong Arm Stuff.

Pluto is currently the slowest moving planet, and therefor carries the most influence. Pluto is about transformation, and Putin is trying to transform Russian's relationship with the world.

Look to the next New Moon, March 1/2, for the "climax" and turning point of the crisis.

This Astrologer says, "Invasion highly unlikely, and will be limited if it occurs at all."

 

[h.h.]

True story. The CIA is keeping Hitlers body alive for their next war. It wasn’t his choice. Read up on Flip Wilson. If you think Gertrude was a hoax, you’re a sheep. I’d give you the link, but it’s highly classified and stored in a vault at Mar Lago.

 

[Creeperpark]

True story. The CIA is keeping Hitlers body alive for their next war. It wasn’t his choice. Read up on Flip Wilson. If you think Gertrude was a hoax, you’re a sheep. I’d give you the link, but it’s highly classified and stored in a vault at Mar Lago.

Geraldine, not Gertrude, have you read the true Flip Wilson papers or some fakes?

 

[audiohi]

you really think the CIA has assets in Russia capable of blowing up a bridge there? you don't think they guard them? you are MUCH further down the rabbit hole than even stempy ever went, lol...

That bridge has already been removed.

Was just a show.

lol.

 

[h.h.]

Geraldine, not Gertrude, have you read the true Flip Wilson papers or some fakes?

That’s what they’d have you believe if you simply watched the show.