For those that want to place 100% of the blame on Russia, this is a good explanation to how we got here.
Blame for the Ukraine war…
- Thread starter DawglegrightinSC
- Start date
More wacko nonsense from this guy.
How exactly does Chat pick which liberal democrats you’re going to listen to?
Like what did RFK Jr. and this guy do that you were like “yeah I’m going to believe everything they say”.
since clearly no one knows who Sachs is, he is the biggest believer in climate change and green energy we have. Are we also now believing everything he says about that and supporting Biden’s Green New Deal? Or are we just picking statements that confirm what we already want to believe?
Well, everything he says here is true so I guess there is that. He is totally a liberal hack but what he says here is no different from what many conservatives and military leaders have been saying. Which parts are you arguing to be untrue or just that I am sharing info from a lib?
It is called NUANCE. You have chosen to filter everything you don't like through a "Litmus test" of purity. Us non-lefties do see gray and know everything in the world isn't black or white. Take Fetterman for example - who if he says something that shows common sense, he is shamed by the left for stepping out of line. How dare he!
Sachs knows foreign policy. Is he currently talking climate? Who cares? And if he is a Green new deal guy, that is expected since he is an academic at a Ivy League school. No shock there. But that doesn't mean he isn't an expert of foreign policy, does it?
As a FREE THINKING AMERICAN, I can listen to a guy on foreign policy and support his viewpoints even if I don't agree with his climate position. ie we don't all have to wear the same color jerseys all the time - that is tribalism.
Wacko nonsense you say, but are you more qualified than him? Please show your work to show he is wacko.
Last edited:
You tend to put things much better than me. Well said.
CNN is wacky also, but they also told the truth back in 2014. So what news organization do you usually get gaslit by?
CNN
### I. James Baker’s Alleged Promise to the USSR A. **Context of the Promise** 1. In February 1990, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker met with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev during negotiations over German reunification. 2. Baker reportedly assured Gorbachev that if the Soviet Union allowed a unified Germany to remain in NATO, the alliance’s jurisdiction or forces would not extend “one inch eastward” beyond East Germany. 3. Similar assurances were echoed by other Western leaders, including West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, as part of a broader effort to secure Soviet approval for German unification. B. **Russian Perspective** 1. Russia, particularly under Vladimir Putin, claims these verbal assurances constituted a promise that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe. 2. The Kremlin argues that subsequent NATO enlargement breached this trust, fueling Moscow’s grievance and justifying its security concerns. C. **Western Counterargument** 1. U.S. and NATO officials, including Baker himself later, assert that no formal, binding agreement was made to limit NATO expansion beyond East Germany. 2. The only codified agreement was the 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, which restricted non-German NATO forces in former East German territory but did not address broader eastward expansion. 3. Gorbachev has given inconsistent statements, at times confirming assurances were made and at other times denying that NATO expansion was discussed beyond Germany. D. **Critical Analysis** 1. The absence of written documentation in treaties leaves room for debate about the intent and scope of Baker’s statements. 2. Some historians argue that informal assurances carried weight in Cold War diplomacy, while others see the U.S. shift away from these assurances as a pragmatic response to a changing geopolitical landscape. --- ### II. History of NATO’s Expansion A. **Initial Post-Cold War Period (1990s)** 1. After the Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991, former Warsaw Pact countries sought security guarantees, leading to NATO’s first eastward expansions. 2. In 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined NATO, marking the first wave of enlargement into former Soviet-aligned states. 3. Russia, under Boris Yeltsin, expressed unease but did not strongly oppose this initial expansion, partly due to economic dependence on the West. B. **Subsequent Waves (2000s–Present)** 1. 2004: Seven more countries, including the Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, joined NATO, bringing the alliance directly to Russia’s borders. 2. 2009: Albania and Croatia joined, further expanding NATO’s southeastern flank. 3. 2017–2020: Montenegro (2017), North Macedonia (2020), and later Finland (2023) and Sweden (2024) joined, driven partly by Russia’s actions in Ukraine and elsewhere. 4. Ukraine and Georgia remain prospective members, with NATO offering vague commitments (e.g., the 2008 Bucharest Summit declaration) but no concrete timeline. C. **Russia’s Reaction** 1. Putin has repeatedly cited NATO’s eastward march as a betrayal, notably in his 2007 Munich Security Conference speech and after the 2014 annexation of Crimea. 2. The expansion near Russia’s borders, especially in Ukraine, has been a stated trigger for its military actions, including the 2022 invasion. --- ### III. Military Requirements for NATO Membership A. **General Criteria** 1. NATO’s “open door” policy, outlined in Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty, allows any European state to apply if it can contribute to collective defense. 2. The 1995 Study on NATO Enlargement established key requirements, including democratic governance, civilian control of the military, and interoperability with NATO forces. B. **Military Standards** 1. **Defense Spending**: Members are expected to work toward spending 2% of GDP on defense, though many fall short. 2. **Force Modernization**: Countries must modernize their militaries to meet NATO standards, including adopting Western equipment and training protocols. 3. **Interoperability**: Forces must integrate with NATO command structures, requiring compatible communication systems, logistics, and joint exercises. 4. **Membership Action Plan (MAP)**: Aspiring members undergo a tailored process to meet these standards, as seen with Ukraine and Georgia. C. **Ukraine’s Case** 1. Ukraine has pursued NATO membership since the 2014 Maidan uprising, accelerating military reforms to align with NATO standards. 2. Challenges include corruption, outdated Soviet-era equipment, and ongoing conflict with Russia, which complicates full integration. --- ### IV. Companies Benefiting from NATO Expansion A. **Defense Contractors** 1. **Lockheed Martin**: Supplies fighter jets (e.g., F-16s, F-35s) and missile defense systems (e.g., THAAD, Patriot) to new NATO members like Poland and Romania. 2. **Raytheon Technologies**: Provides missile systems and radar equipment, benefiting from Eastern European countries upgrading defenses against Russia. 3. **Boeing**: Sells military aircraft and support systems, profiting from NATO interoperability requirements. 4. **Northrop Grumman**: Supplies surveillance and cybersecurity technologies, critical for NATO’s eastern flank. B. **Economic Impact** 1. New members’ defense budgets often prioritize U.S. and Western European equipment, boosting these companies’ revenues. 2. Joint exercises and infrastructure projects (e.g., bases in Poland and the Baltics) further drive contracts. C. **Geopolitical Leverage** 1. These companies gain long-term influence as NATO expansion locks in reliance on Western military technology, sidelining Russian alternatives. --- ### V. Obama/Biden’s Role in Zelenskyy’s Installation A. **Context of 2014 Maidan Uprising** 1. In 2014, Ukraine’s pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted amid protests, partly fueled by his rejection of an EU association agreement. 2. The Obama administration, with then-Vice President Joe Biden as point man on Ukraine, supported the uprising, viewing it as a chance to pivot Ukraine westward. B. **U.S. Influence in Post-Maidan Ukraine** 1. Biden worked closely with interim leaders and Petro Poroshenko, elected in 2014, pushing anti-corruption reforms and military aid to counter Russia. 2. The U.S. provided non-lethal aid initially, later escalating to lethal weapons (e.g., Javelin missiles) under Trump, with Biden’s backing. C. **Zelenskyy’s Rise (2019)** 1. Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a political outsider, won the presidency in 2019 with a landslide, campaigning on anti-corruption and peace with Russia. 2. While not directly “installed” by Obama/Biden, his victory aligned with U.S. interests in a pro-Western, NATO-aspiring Ukraine. 3. Biden, as vice president until 2017 and later as president from 2021, shaped U.S. policy supporting Zelenskyy, including $61 billion in aid after Russia’s 2022 invasion. D. **Critical Perspective** 1. Critics argue U.S. involvement in 2014 amounted to meddling, setting the stage for Zelenskyy’s pro-NATO stance and escalating tensions with Russia. 2. Supporters see it as backing Ukraine’s sovereign choice, though the lack of direct evidence ties Zelenskyy’s election to Obama/Biden orchestration. --- ### Conclusion - The debate over Baker’s promise hinges on interpretation: Russia sees a betrayal, while the West denies a binding commitment, fueling decades of mistrust. - NATO’s expansion reflects both Eastern Europe’s security demands and Western strategic goals, with military requirements ensuring integration into a U.S.-led framework. - Defense giants like Lockheed and Raytheon reap profits, while Obama and Biden’s policies indirectly bolstered Zelenskyy’s pro-Western trajectory, amplifying the NATO-Russia divide. This outline balances historical claims, practical outcomes, and critical scrutiny, leaving room for further exploration of primary sources or user clarification on specific points.
It’s complicated 🧐
It’s complicated 🧐
Last edited:
