HARPER: WEST BROKE PROMISE TO YELTSIN OF NO NATO EXPANSION

As relations between the United States and Russia move from bad to worse, despite President Donald Trump's efforts to maintain good personal relations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, it is worthwhile to review a critical piece of post-Cold War history.  Back at the time of German reunification, there was a handshake agreement between the United States, Russia, Germany and NATO that there would be no eastward expansion of NATO, so long as Russia accepted the integration of East Germany into the Federal Republic and Germany's continued membership in NATO.  Ambassador Jack Matlock, who represented the United States in the Soviet Union and Russia during the transition period, verified the deal, as did General Harald Kujat, former head of the German armed forces and then chairman of the NATO Defense Committee.  Others on the Russian side have confirmed similar accounts.  

Not only was there a pledge to halt any eastward expansion of NATO.  It was clearly understood that Ukraine would be a permanent buffer state between NATO and Russian borders.  During the early days of the Clinton Administration, the U.S. launched the Partnership for Peace, which was presented as an alternative to NATO expansion.  Russia was promised membership in the new security structure.  

While some American officials, including military flag officers, called for the dismantling of NATO at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, others argued that NATO had an important mission:  To assure that there was no new outbreak of war on the European continent.  NATO was the only treaty organization under which the United States maintained a presence in Europe.  There was legitimate concern that, after two world wars in the 20th century broke out in Europe, it was appropriate to maintain a watchful eye that no new conflict erupted among the contending European states.  Given the Balkan Wars of the early 1990s, this was not an outlandish concern.  Ultimately, according to the logic of those promoting a continuation of NATO, Russia could be incorporated in a new security architecture.  In effect, under a revived American-Russian cooperation, war in Europe would be a permanent thing of the past.

This narrative may seem absurd by today's circumstances.  But there is now a growing body of declassified documents that confirm that there was a gentlemen's agreement that there would be no further eastward expansion of NATO, and that the Partnership for Peace would be the anchor of a new Eurasian security architecture to prevent the outbreak of future wars, and to build new cooperative relations in the economic and political spheres as well.

The National Security Archive, hosted at George Washington University (www.nsarchiv@gwu.edu) has recently obtained and posted a number of documents from U.S. and Russian files from the early 1990s, recounting this story.  They can be found under the headline "NATO Expansion: What Yeltsin Heard."  They are well-worth reading for anyone looking for a way out of the current madness New Cold War rhetoric coming from Washington, Berlin, London, Paris and Moscow.

Comments

[et Al]

I seem to recall that the purely European WEU (Western European Union) was touted as replacement for NATO that would be purely European and built up, so there would have been at least some discussion. I wonder what the dynamics of that fail were and if there are any public documents that highlight it?

[Jubal]

Stalin promised free elections in these exact same eastern European countries now conquered by Nato only 45 years earlier. Instead he delivered murder, gulags, rape and ethnic cleansing. Because of his total obliteration of any opposition, the postwar history today is still corrupted with Stalin's and the Bolshevic's lies. Not to mentioned all those falsely charged and executed at Nuremburg.

Take Stalin himself. Many Russians would claim that his continuing murder of millions after the war was already won cannot be blamed on Russia or Russians. They claim it was the USSR that perpetrated these deeds. But many of these same Russians suffer from nostalgic delusions about the good old days under "Uncle Joe".

[Casey]

Yeah, I'd say they're moving from worse to as bad as it gets, as Mr. Global sets up a coordinated, simultaneous, four-front attack (Syria, Ukraine, Iran, DPRK) on Rus allies, along with their various false-flag absurdities. We'd better hope any adults left in the room put Mr. Global in the psych ward, and real soon.

[Anna]

I wonder, what nation makes your cultural/genetic roots. According to your post, your people have been ruled by angelic creatures.

[turcopolier]

b

what link? pl

[JohnA]

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard this one.....b had it embedded.

[JW]

A handshake agreement to limit the eastward expansion of NATO ? This handshaking was going on while Western commercial interests were penetrating, en-masse, the newly de-Sovietised economies of Russia and the CIS states and that alone should have been a hint of what was to come. I'd suggest that Putin was not one to miss that hint.
Power depends on domination and monopolisation of resources, people and ground, or at least in an interim period denying their exploitation by competitors such as their contemporary owners. Control of or denial of use of the wealth of Eurasia, the greatest land mass on the planet, is the key to hegemonic control of the planet for an inestimable time interval, and numerous routes have and will be tried to achieve this objective.
With that in mind, could anyone really express surprise at some long ago handshakes and broken agreements made to Boris Yeltsin and a bunch of bewildered former Soviet bureaucrats ? The Chinese has long since learned the lesson.

[JW]

Re your #27. Some of those outcomes are now apparent and are leading to disquiet among some of the once eager participants. It would be interesting to discover Iran's view at the time of the future likely outcomes for the participants of this 'civilising' process. Iran obviously had little interest in becoming a participant and it's thinkers would thus have been able to retain some objectivity in observing this process.

[guidoamm]

A blast from the, albeit recent, past.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8144154/Nato-must-continue-operations-beyond-our-borders.html

"[...] Anders Fogh Rasmussen said alliance members must be willing and able to exercise military power "beyond our borders" to combat threats such as terrorism and missile attacks."

"[...] By contrast, Britain and the US believe that to remain relevant, Nato must be prepared to tackle potential security threats beyond its members' borders."

"[...] Afthanistan could serve a template (sic) for future threats and Nato's response to them."

No mention of course of who defines what may or may not represent a threat.

Note also the author's opinion that Afghanistan is to be held up as a model of how to go about things. The MIC's dream come true.

g

[b]

I linked it above as HTML link under
"NATO Expansion: What Yeltsin Heard"
Works in my browser.

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

[Balint Somkuti, PhD]

Indeed.

Nobody would have thought only the names are changed. The situation remains.

[Sarah B]

Whatever aliby is offered to explain whatever promise ever made by the US and Western allies on whatever issue is difficult to take into account, since their very way of procceed have been consistently always the same.
On historical facts on inteventions by US Imperialism in Russian sphere of influence and everywhere, I bring in this Spanish translation of 56 chapter of the book "Killing Hope" by Wiliam Blum, currently discontinued, with the following comment by the editor of the blog which made the effort:

The recent American Empire (chapter 56 of Assassinating Hope, by William Blum)

"The way Bush and his people managed to deflect America's anger from Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein is one of the greatest public relations sorcery tricks in history." John le Carré, quoted by Blum.

Note from the blog editor: We offer the last chapter of William Blum's book on interventions by the CIA and the US Army since the end of World War II. In this chapter that closes his book, Blum tells us about the recent American "Empire", from 1992 to 2002. It is obvious that between 2002 and 2016 many events have taken place in the world, linked to US imperialism. The last 13 years are not reflected since Blum's book was finished writing in 2003 and published in 2004. Even so, it is a chapter that we can extrapolate perfectly to understand US imperialism. since then. Perhaps, everything that Blum describes has been accentuated more and more in recent years. It is, then, a text that maintains its relevance.
The term "Empire" applied to the United States it began being used by critics of imperialism. However, as Blum tells us, more and more apologists of US foreign policy are using it proudly; recognize and defend such imperial reality.
"The American Empire" is the last chapter of Blum's book. It closes a magnificent and indispensable work whose knowledge and diffusion are required if we want to understand the contemporary world. It is not possible to understand international relations, peaceful or violent, outside of imperialism, just as it is not possible to understand capitalism outside of the latter.

Documentary reference: William Blum: "The North American Empire from 1992 to the present", in "Killing Hope. Interventions of the CIA and the United States Army since the Second World War", chap. 56, pp. 460 to 471. Editorial Oriente, Santiago de Cuba (Cuba), 2005 (original in English: William Blum, "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II", Common Courage Press, 2004).
Digitization source and corrections (cite and keep the hyperlink): Blog Del Viejo Topo.
Images, captions and bold: they are our addition.
Other chapters of the book: to access other chapters published on the blog, see the index at the end and click on the hyperlinks that are active."

http://blogdelviejotopo.blogspot.com.es/2016/05/el-imperio-norteamericano-reciente-cap.html

[LeaNder]

David, I am familiar with the argument you refer to in the last paragraph. It surfaced in looks at the larger ideological battle at the time as far as the more then extreme Nazi propaganda was 'echoed' or found supporters for historical reasons e.g. in Hungary and/or the Ukraine, arbitrarily. The larger "Judeo-Bolshevik" complex. I have a deep inner resistance to where it feels it would end theoretically. Had they taken a different route they could have made it? Seriously? They should have?

Along these lines, I am not sure either, if I want to reduce Ukrainians collectively to Banderistas. Fact seems that obviously everyone in Russia is anti-Nazi, which includes the extreme right.

*******
Prof Glees alluded to several people beyond the more spectacular cases in the UK. Eight, I seem to remember. Only three were mentioned: Litvinenco, Skripal and Berezovsky's (suicide)*. Not sure if Glees does include him in this list. unfortunately no one asked him for a list. Who else does he have in mind?

Arbitrary google search:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/13/russian-exile-nikolai-glushkov-found-dead-at-his-london-home

Glushkov? Who else may be on his mind?

* Now, if anything wouldn't a service use something less spectacular then Polonium and whatever poison gas?

[janes]

david, it is always interesting and informative reading your comments.. thanks for making them.. i struggle with the idea that anyone is is idealistic is being naive.. this is how it would appear gorbachev has to be taken, but i struggle with it regardless, as i am attached to the idealism that is built into his way of thinking as you outline here.. at what point does humanity seek an alternative to war and the build up and preparation for war which is the basis for NATO? as john lennon said 'give peace a chance'.. i think gorbachev did this..

i read today an article by peter hitchens where he mentions "Nato is the real barrier to peace" -
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2018/03/peter-hitchens-the-patriotic-thought-police-came-for-corbyn-you-are-next.html

would the usa ever let europe drop nato? would europe ever recognize how it is a block to greater peace in europe? or, do bigger fences make better neighbours?

pat mentioned you might do a thread on the skripal / uk dynamic at some point.. i hope you do... thanks..

[Jubal]

@Anna, RE: "roots"

Actually, the bezirk of which I am a citizen and taxpayer was once the oldest Republic in Europe. Some Alemeni hill volk and some lake dwellers managed to purchase their freedom from the Habsburgs in about 1350. This Free Republic existed for centuries until its representatives arrived late at the Congress of Vienna in 1817. Our Republic was lost in the same way that Switzerland was lost when it joined the UN.

Switzerland had a long history of preventing rulers and powerful cliques from gaining a monopoly on power. Unfortunately, that history has been discarded in favor of giving up sovereignty to globalist agendas like refugee settlement, global warming, tax law, and here specifically: to NATO empire building (Switzerland is active in "defending" Kosovo).

[Babak Makkinejad]

I forget the name, but in 1954 (I think), there was this very popular Russian song, which, I think, emotively influenced the minds of Gorbachev's generation. The ideal of "Perestroika" might have been born then.
The moving hand, however, has written that Gorbachev & Arbatov were wrong while Stalin and Alexander I right.

[Babak Makkinejad]

In the link below, Ambassador Chas Freeman (Rtd.), engages in what I have been advocating several times on this forum; viz. The Rectification of Names - among other topics.
http://chasfreeman.net/diplomacy-as-strategy/

[Babak Makkinejad]

Defending against "Terrorism and Missile Attacks" are code words for war against Iran, I guess. Reminds me of the war plans of the Imperial General Staff that late into autumn of 1939 called for war against USSR.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Well at least you can now travel freely and tell jokes about your leaders without fear. Reminds me of my great aunt who stated: "At least under communists we could drink."

[turcopolier]

Babak

What have you don with the true Babak? He would not have had a great aunt who lived under communism. You do not acknowledge the religious baraka of the Hashemite king? He, too, is sharif. some time ago one of you Baraks posited that a group of trolls ar working this site rotating invented personalities. How much do you think they get a word? pl

[Babak Makkinejad]

My great aunt was making a joke about post-revolutionary Iran.

[Babak Makkinejad]

The King of Moroco is acknowledged and accepted by the population as Emir al Mouamenin; he could legitimately make rulings on Islam. That does not obtain for the Hashemite Kingdom in Jordan.

[turcopolier]

Babak

As you know,the religious authority of the king of Morocco is a matter of Moroccan politics and was the basis of the establishment of the country under French protection. Muhammad II is called "amir al mumeneen" because he wishes to be called that. Abdullah II's lineage seems equally worthy to me. pl

[Babak Makkinejad]

Yes, I am only discussing an accident of history. The Kingdom of Morocco has the thoretical capacity to transform itself into an Islamic Constitutional Monarchy along the Eur4 models. The King could deputize a religious council, etc.

[Babak Makkinejad]

King Abdullah II is acknowledged as the Custodian of Christian and Muslim Shrines of Jerusalem. Even Iranians accept that but he has never promoted himself as such; a political mistake in my opinion. But then again, "The foremost interest of the Realm is known only to the Monarch and none other."