Well... The United States of Terrorism (USofT) is all about exploitation, torture, invasion and death. Its economy wouldn't be what it is without those features!
So it's not surprising to hear the current terrorist head of NATO (North Atlantic Terrorist Organization) say the following:
"We have to remember the background the background was that President Putin declared in the Autumn of 2021 and he actually sent a draft treat that they wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement that was what what he sent us and that was that that was a precondition for not invade uh uh Ukraine of course we didn't sign that"
You're not arguing in good faith. To call the US the United States of Terrorism is fine, if that's how you feel, but to then pretend Russia is not just as bad, and that Putin as a person is not morally reprehensible is a totally weighted scale. Also, even if he sent a treaty, no one was obligated by anything to sign it.
"Sign this thing that gives me access to your garage or else I'll burn it down," is not honest bargaining.
Not a matter of "feeling"... it's just a simple matter of History and Facts. Then from were you extrapolate all that stuff about me pretending Russia in not just as bad, and Putin... beats me.
And you probable didn't understand the NATO talking head point. Russia/Putin didn't want access to Ukraine... They just don't want the western terrorists parked in it. Just like the USofT didn't enjoyed the idea of Russian missiles in Cuba.
But you can always keep pretending that the Westerners are the Good Guys/Gals!
You didn't ask for my advice, but I'll give it anyway - I think this piece would be stronger if you led with a specific example of someone making a false claim about NATO expansionism.
There's no shortage of people like Matt Ehret and Cynthia Chung, whose geopolitical analysis boils down to BRICS GOOD BECAUSE NATO BAD, and debunking their claims could be a full-time job.
I've done a bit of this but I'm also allergic to NATO so there's only so much time I want to spend setting the record straight when it might come off like I'm defending the world's foremost imperialist aggressors.
Yeah, my primary concern is just being accurate with criticisms. Everything in the world policy-wise is a give and take between costs and benefits. Further, the big movements in history aren't monocausal.
I'll take your note on adding the specific quotes of people making the claims. I alluded to it by mentioning RFK and Tucker, but I sort of wrote the piece on a whim one day when I just couldn't take the BS being repeated any longer.
I definitely like that about you... Now that conspiracy theory has gone mainstream, fact-checking the counter-narrative has become a full-time job. By the way, we've joined forces with some of the remaining uncorrupted Leftists (like David Rovics & Keith McHenry) and we're gearing up to go to war with the Alexander Reid Ross / Shane Burley / Spencer Sunshine ideological subversion squad... See Winter Oak or David Rovics's website for deets!
"First, we have to ignore for the moment that the US Secretary of State doesn’t have the power to make promises for all of NATO"- and yet Hilary Clinton was able to swiftly use that particular defensive organisation to bobmb Libya. NATO has long been an extension of US foreign policy- and why not? It's is by far the largest member.
Gorbachevs mistake was not to believe the lies he was sold- which is very sad for all of us who treasure peace and togetherness through trust. The whole 'ha ha- well you should have had it written down' rings a touch hollow. Words were said in front of the entrie world and led to the Berlin wall coming down. Such an important moment should have been treasured- remembered forever and those words enshrined as we moved forward together into a new century- leaving behind two horrific world wars. Still Gorbachev was right, he left the US without an enemy and they just couldn't live with that. US false promises which went unfulfilled are nothing to be proud of. Still, even if it was written down, who is to say. Both Minsk accords were in writing yet the Ukraine, seemningly at the behest of some unknown force, ignored them. Do you think if 'not an inch further' had been written down, it would have made a difference? Either way, using NATO to antagonise Russia does not seem to have been a particularly sauccessful plan (unless you're in the arms trade or belong to a drug cartel, or you are Zelensky's banker...) I mean, remember those poor Ukranians? Well actually, why bother? With a bit of luck you'll be down to the last of them soon and nobody will be left to tell the tale.
As it was, the peace dividend has been squandered. It's shameful that the actions of the neocons have been so easily masked and hidden. I'm no fan of Putin ( his main crime being a WEF young leader) but you cannot ignore the US manipulation of the Ukraine and the baiting of Russia- particularly from 2014 to the present day.
That is of course unless one is blinded by the government censors in the media. Being here suggests otherwise- which is a big victory. Thank you for your article.
I think that the discussions that were had at the time were made in the context of the time and that Baker was very careful in what he said, and that in Feb of 1990 he was thinking about reunifying Germany and keeping it in NATO and that's it. I don't think an issue as huge as whether or not any new countries could be admitted into NATO would be left to casual conversations or even to a sit down with the Secretary of State. I give the Soviet Union more credit. I think that if no new eastern countries in NATO was a deal point for them, they would have insisted on more specifically talking about that issue and outlining it. Especially in Feb of 90, I don't think Baker or Gorbachev were seriously thinking about countries like possibly Poland joining NATO.
Dude! It's fantastic to see you writing again!! When were you going to let me know?
Given that you are (almost) a founding member of Nevermore, we'll always be happy to give you a signal boost. Get in touch!
I'm not running our Substack currently (got to focus on paid work), but I will the gang know that you're back in the saddle.
Well... The United States of Terrorism (USofT) is all about exploitation, torture, invasion and death. Its economy wouldn't be what it is without those features!
So it's not surprising to hear the current terrorist head of NATO (North Atlantic Terrorist Organization) say the following:
"We have to remember the background the background was that President Putin declared in the Autumn of 2021 and he actually sent a draft treat that they wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement that was what what he sent us and that was that that was a precondition for not invade uh uh Ukraine of course we didn't sign that"
source: https://www.youtube.com/live/GED33Xkaqcw?t=513
So it is clear that the intentions of the USofT is to continue to spread exploitation, torture, invasion and death.
https://postimg.cc/dkrsSR1F
You're not arguing in good faith. To call the US the United States of Terrorism is fine, if that's how you feel, but to then pretend Russia is not just as bad, and that Putin as a person is not morally reprehensible is a totally weighted scale. Also, even if he sent a treaty, no one was obligated by anything to sign it.
"Sign this thing that gives me access to your garage or else I'll burn it down," is not honest bargaining.
Ah... longing for some Cuba!
Not a matter of "feeling"... it's just a simple matter of History and Facts. Then from were you extrapolate all that stuff about me pretending Russia in not just as bad, and Putin... beats me.
And you probable didn't understand the NATO talking head point. Russia/Putin didn't want access to Ukraine... They just don't want the western terrorists parked in it. Just like the USofT didn't enjoyed the idea of Russian missiles in Cuba.
But you can always keep pretending that the Westerners are the Good Guys/Gals!
You didn't ask for my advice, but I'll give it anyway - I think this piece would be stronger if you led with a specific example of someone making a false claim about NATO expansionism.
There's no shortage of people like Matt Ehret and Cynthia Chung, whose geopolitical analysis boils down to BRICS GOOD BECAUSE NATO BAD, and debunking their claims could be a full-time job.
I've done a bit of this but I'm also allergic to NATO so there's only so much time I want to spend setting the record straight when it might come off like I'm defending the world's foremost imperialist aggressors.
What you bring to the table is valuable, though.
Yeah, my primary concern is just being accurate with criticisms. Everything in the world policy-wise is a give and take between costs and benefits. Further, the big movements in history aren't monocausal.
I'll take your note on adding the specific quotes of people making the claims. I alluded to it by mentioning RFK and Tucker, but I sort of wrote the piece on a whim one day when I just couldn't take the BS being repeated any longer.
I definitely like that about you... Now that conspiracy theory has gone mainstream, fact-checking the counter-narrative has become a full-time job. By the way, we've joined forces with some of the remaining uncorrupted Leftists (like David Rovics & Keith McHenry) and we're gearing up to go to war with the Alexander Reid Ross / Shane Burley / Spencer Sunshine ideological subversion squad... See Winter Oak or David Rovics's website for deets!
"First, we have to ignore for the moment that the US Secretary of State doesn’t have the power to make promises for all of NATO"- and yet Hilary Clinton was able to swiftly use that particular defensive organisation to bobmb Libya. NATO has long been an extension of US foreign policy- and why not? It's is by far the largest member.
Gorbachevs mistake was not to believe the lies he was sold- which is very sad for all of us who treasure peace and togetherness through trust. The whole 'ha ha- well you should have had it written down' rings a touch hollow. Words were said in front of the entrie world and led to the Berlin wall coming down. Such an important moment should have been treasured- remembered forever and those words enshrined as we moved forward together into a new century- leaving behind two horrific world wars. Still Gorbachev was right, he left the US without an enemy and they just couldn't live with that. US false promises which went unfulfilled are nothing to be proud of. Still, even if it was written down, who is to say. Both Minsk accords were in writing yet the Ukraine, seemningly at the behest of some unknown force, ignored them. Do you think if 'not an inch further' had been written down, it would have made a difference? Either way, using NATO to antagonise Russia does not seem to have been a particularly sauccessful plan (unless you're in the arms trade or belong to a drug cartel, or you are Zelensky's banker...) I mean, remember those poor Ukranians? Well actually, why bother? With a bit of luck you'll be down to the last of them soon and nobody will be left to tell the tale.
As it was, the peace dividend has been squandered. It's shameful that the actions of the neocons have been so easily masked and hidden. I'm no fan of Putin ( his main crime being a WEF young leader) but you cannot ignore the US manipulation of the Ukraine and the baiting of Russia- particularly from 2014 to the present day.
That is of course unless one is blinded by the government censors in the media. Being here suggests otherwise- which is a big victory. Thank you for your article.
I think that the discussions that were had at the time were made in the context of the time and that Baker was very careful in what he said, and that in Feb of 1990 he was thinking about reunifying Germany and keeping it in NATO and that's it. I don't think an issue as huge as whether or not any new countries could be admitted into NATO would be left to casual conversations or even to a sit down with the Secretary of State. I give the Soviet Union more credit. I think that if no new eastern countries in NATO was a deal point for them, they would have insisted on more specifically talking about that issue and outlining it. Especially in Feb of 90, I don't think Baker or Gorbachev were seriously thinking about countries like possibly Poland joining NATO.