Potential sites for new mega-solar farms

[Delaney]

I do not believe that is the case.

The discussions on re-unification of Germany took place largely in 1989. Gorbachev was the Russian President at the time and he confirmed in an interview in 2014 that "The topic of 'NATO expansion' was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years ..."

The Warsaw Pact was still in existence until 1991 so it was something of a moot point. Gorbachev also acknowledges though that there was not an expectation on his/Russia's part that events would unfold at the pace they did.

Yeltsin, when he subsequently came to power, pushed Clinton for an assurance that NATO would not admit former Warsaw Pact countries. Clinton consistently pointed out that it was down to sovereign states to decide their own future direction. NATO didn't go on a recruitment drive - Putin's own actions have driven it's expansion with the latest examples being Finland and Sweden.

My personal view is that the discussions on reunification and subsequent discussions with Yeltsin (which were largely about support for Russia in transforming from the Cold War era) are being deliberately conflated by Putin to infer something was promised that was not. Earlier in the year as part of my OU studies I took the time to look at the declassified documents available online in the US National Archive and others at the Clinton library so I'm not just blindly following what the press "feeds me" in reaching my view.

Putin has/is trying to re-establish the former USSR. NATO is a defensive alliance and a quick look at the map shows it is not surrounding Russia. NATO has only ever deployed outside of NATO territory (for instance the KFOR peacekeeping force) when authorised to do so by a UN Security Council Mandate ... where Russia has a veto.

One thing we can perhaps agree on is that while the "West won the Cold War" the opportunity that it presented for a more stable world has been squandered.

Interesting read.

There are of course statements at the time made by those at the head of negotiations, that they would not expand east beyond Germany.
Of course a promise by the US, Nato and or Russia isn’t worth the breath it was given on.

Btw new information releases shows the pipeline was a US backed job carried out by Ukraine.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/investigates/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-ukraine-diver-1.7296527

To think Russia would blow up their own pipeline is a bit odd. Given that the Biden regime also said they would destroy it.

 

[woodieallen]

Listen I think you’re a brave man. A man ready to stand by his convictions and do what he believes is right, by putting his body on the line. I salute you and wish there were more men like you. It must have taken real courage on your part to go over to Ukraine and join the fight.

Я б зробив, якби був молодший, тов

 

[Jake]

You can jump up and down all you like. Nor is Russia going to let Nato compete for naval dominance along the coast of Ukraine.

More Russian nonsense, the Black Sea fleet is not that strategically important to Russia not least because it cannot leave the Black Sea without Turkish (NATO) permission. So it's only any use for threatening and attacking near-neighbours of Russia.

The below is a bit old (and the Black Sea fleet is considerably smaller now because quite a bit of it is on the seabed thanks to good work by Ukraine) but is still a good summary. Sevastopol's supposed strategic importance is just more Russian pretext for imperialistic expansion because it has robbed its own population blind.

 

[Chris152]

More Russian nonsense, the Black Sea fleet is not that strategically important to Russia not least because it cannot leave the Black Sea without Turkish (NATO) permission. So it's only any use for threatening and attacking near-neighbours of Russia.

The below is a bit old (and the Black Sea fleet is considerably smaller now because quite a bit of it is on the seabed thanks to good work by Ukraine) but is still a good summary. Sevastopol's supposed strategic importance is just more Russian pretext for imperialistic expansion because it has robbed its own population blind.

View attachment 186445

I see you're still inclined to 'jump up and stomp your fist all you like', Jake. You really need to get that under control.

 

[Blackswanwood]

There are of course statements at the time made by those at the head of negotiations, that they would not expand east beyond Germany.

Can you point me to which negotiators have said this please? As I mentioned earlier Gorbachev doesn't agree that a commitment was given and he was there.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

Btw new information releases shows the pipeline was a US backed job carried out by Ukraine.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/investigates/nord-stream-pipeline-explosion-ukraine-diver-1.7296527

To think Russia would blow up their own pipeline is a bit odd. Given that the Biden regime also said they would destroy it.

I did see that elsewhere although I've not seen anything that points to US involvement (other than what's been said by Putin et al). Given Russia was having a price cap imposed at the time I can see why a false flag operation would be useful to them. I haven't seen any credible statement from the "Biden regime" that they were going to destroy it. I agree it raises questions though.

The best place for Ukraine to be, was a Russian satellite and those Ukrainians who wante to immigrate into the EU do so.

I don't understand your rationale as the obvious (in my mind) question it raises is where do you draw the line when the next move is made? Poland? Estonia? Lithuania? (Interestingly Russia settled a border dispute with Lithuania to facilitate them being able to join NATO). Russia has also questioned the legality of the reunification of Germany ... East Germany?

 

[Delaney]

More Russian nonsense, the Black Sea fleet is not that strategically important to Russia not least because it cannot leave the Black Sea without Turkish (NATO) permission. So it's only any use for threatening and attacking near-neighbours of Russia.

The below is a bit old (and the Black Sea fleet is considerably smaller now because quite a bit of it is on the seabed thanks to good work by Ukraine) but is still a good summary. Sevastopol's supposed strategic importance is just more Russian pretext for imperialistic expansion because it has robbed its own population blind.

View attachment 186445

There is almost no way a super power would give up either historic, immediate, or future security positions of the such.
What you think of its relevance and or effectiveness is neither here nor there.

Think about what you’re saying. That Russia will just let Nato (The US) gain superiority in this area threatening their hold on Crimea and other strategically important areas?
And instead these are all concocted excuses to attack a neighbouring country, that they didn’t attack for decades until the US staged a coup there.

 

[Delaney]

Can you point me to which negotiators have said this please? As I mentioned earlier Gorbachev doesn't agree that a commitment was given and he was there.

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/



I did see that elsewhere although I've not seen anything that points to US involvement (other than what's been said by Putin et al). Given Russia was having a price cap imposed at the time I can see why a false flag operation would be useful to them. I haven't seen any credible statement from the "Biden regime" that they were going to destroy it. I agree it raises questions though.



I don't understand your rationale as the obvious (in my mind) question it raises is where do you draw the line when the next move is made? Poland? Estonia? Lithuania? (Interestingly Russia settled a border dispute with Lithuania to facilitate them being able to join NATO). Russia has also questioned the legality of the reunification of Germany ... East Germany?

“on February 9, 1990, at a meeting with Shevardnadze, James Baker stated that the United States was striving for a united Germany that would remain "firmly tied to NATO," promising at the same time "iron guarantees that NATO jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward."[25] Later that day, at a meeting with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, he acknowledged that "It is important for the Soviet Union and other European countries to have guarantees that if the United States maintains its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, there will be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction or military presence by a single inch in the eastern direction"

False flags are fun but in reality, the truth is more often much simpler.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/biden-meet-german-chancellor-russia-ukraine-tesnions-rcna15190

I draw the line at Russia attacking a Nato country. Not one that we’ve performed a coup in against a democratically elected leader. We’ve started a war that the reasons for doing so, are being kept from us and lied about. Who gains from this? A war we cannot afford and one that makes us less safe. One that is killing nearly 1 million European men, when we’re already in a population crisis.
A war that when America is bored or realises it can’t win, when corporate interests have to throw in the towel, an entire nation and people would have been laid to waste.
We’ve done this in Libya, Syria, Iraq and soon Iran. None of which has worked, has made our enemies stronger and has caused a horrendous loss of life and potential.

Tge whole thing has been an utter dissaster, on the scale of Lybia imo. American regime change on European soil. They must have got really bored.

 

[Jake]

And instead these are all concocted excuses to attack a neighbouring country, that they didn’t attack for decades.

The war started the very same year that the Ukrainian people overthrew Putin's puppet.

 

[Blackswanwood]

“on February 9, 1990, at a meeting with Shevardnadze, James Baker stated that the United States was striving for a united Germany that would remain "firmly tied to NATO," promising at the same time "iron guarantees that NATO jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward."[25] Later that day, at a meeting with Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, he acknowledged that "It is important for the Soviet Union and other European countries to have guarantees that if the United States maintains its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, there will be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction or military presence by a single inch in the eastern direction"

False flags are fun but in reality, the truth is more often much simpler.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/biden-meet-german-chancellor-russia-ukraine-tesnions-rcna15190

I draw the line at Russia attacking a Nato country. Not one that we’ve performed a coup in against a democratically elected leader. We’ve started a war that the reasons for doing so, are being kept from us and lied about. Who gains from this? A war we cannot afford and one that makes us less safe. One that is killing nearly 1 million European men, when we’re already in a population crisis.
A war that when America is bored or realises it can’t win, when corporate interests have to throw in the towel, an entire nation and people would have been laid to waste.
We’ve done this in Libya, Syria, Iraq and soon Iran. None of which has worked, has made our enemies stronger and has caused a horrendous loss of life and potential

Thanks - I’ve seen that quote relating to James Baker. It however relates solely to what happened about the security of East Germany. The Warsaw Pact was still in existence so the prospect of NATO moving East beyond the the Eastern border of the reunited Germany was a moot point. Gorbachev acknoweldged this - the break up of the Soviet Empire was not anticipated or discussed.

The agreement was reached that the only NATO forces allowed to be positioned in the former East Germany would be German. Russia was also compensated for the cost of withdrawing Warsaw Pact forces from East Germany.

I don’t see it as us starting a war. Russia rolled it’s tanks over the Ukrainian border. My interpretation of the facts is that Zelensky was elected by the Ukrainian people rather than installed in a US led coup.

Your question as to who gains from this is a complex one. Clearly the majority of the Ukrainian population feel it’s worth fighting for the right to determine their own future.

I do agree that the track record with Libya, Syria etc is not something to be proud of but (in my view) the issues at stake here are much clearer cut.

Thanks for explaining your view.

 

[Jake]

All nations know that words of politicians in a government of a country of a particular day are meaningless unless they are turned into obligations which bind the nation itself in international law. That's the purpose of a treaty or convention, and if you are concerned to ensure that something actually is a binding commitment you need to ensure it is made into a binding commitment, and that means a treaty not warm words or assurances or other diplomatic persuasions.

The other way around however can also not be true because there are many countries who ignore international treaty obligations when it suits them (like Russia has with Ukraine for instance). However, there's simply no basis for a complaint that there was some sort of breach of anything as between sovereign nations unless you have got to a position where the nation you are complaining about was bound in international law to do something - and that means by a treaty.

 

[Spectric]

Is there going to be a new floating mega solar farm in the black sea by any chance !

 

[Delaney]

Thanks - I’ve seen that quote relating to James Baker. It however relates solely to what happened about the security of East Germany. The Warsaw Pact was still in existence so the prospect of NATO moving East beyond the the Eastern border of the reunited Germany was a moot point. Gorbachev acknoweldged this - the break up of the Soviet Empire was not anticipated or discussed.

The agreement was reached that the only NATO forces allowed to be positioned in the former East Germany would be German. Russia was also compensated for the cost of withdrawing Warsaw Pact forces from East Germany.

I don’t see it as us starting a war. Russia rolled it’s tanks over the Ukrainian border. My interpretation of the facts is that Zelensky was elected by the Ukrainian people rather than installed in a US led coup.

Your question as to who gains from this is a complex one. Clearly the majority of the Ukrainian population feel it’s worth fighting for the right to determine their own future.

I do agree that the track record with Libya, Syria etc is not something to be proud of but (in my view) the issues at stake here are much clearer cut.

Thanks for explaining your view.

Baker was not the only person to make the proclamation, but as you pointed out, if it’s not in a treaty, it’s not worth anything. It does however give the Russians an excuse so perhaps bold claims still make waves.
As we’ve said, it’s a moot point because what Russia is saying, is that the don’t want Ukraine to become a Nato state with US missiles pointing at Russia. They’ve complained many times at the ones in former USSR states.
Russia are somewhat consistent in their complaints but these fall on deaf ears due to the belligerence of the US and the EU.
The EU is always going to bring us closer to war because you cannot have such an entity birthed into the world, without huge amounts of friction. Israel being a good example.

Regarding the coup, you’ll have to look into that some more yourself. As with the pipeline, you’ll find it’s not even close to what the BBC claim.
It was a coup backed by US NGoO’s and how do you know the majority of the population voted to go with the US? All coups are done in the name of those committing them.

The victors get to control the narrative.

 

[Jake]

Yet more Russian propaganda, at least you are consistent.

 

[Delaney]

W