PSYCHOANALYSING NATO: CONFIRMATION BIAS

And yeah...history is history...you call it reneging, others will call it assurances.

Whether it's gorby naivety, or the other member states wishes.....Europe is better for it, since there is security and stability.....and more prosperity.
What was there under Marxism/Leninism....KGB,Stasi, trabbies, countless thousands of escape attempts, endless food lineups?
Keep drinking the Putinka kool aid stripey).

 

Others - you included Zoom - will always try to dilute anything and everything the US does - especially if it includes screwing over your despised Russia. But nothing is clearer on the actualite of what happened than the US National Security Archive page I linked above earlier.

The point to remember is that when nations make commitments they do not keep trust is eroded not just by the nation cheated, but other nations take note too.

And on your point about the evils of the Soviet Union, which I agree with, is the salutary realisation that after the end of the Soviet Union the US and the West had the opportunity to negotiate changes with Russia and bring her in from the cold. They were willing.

But the decision was made to plunder and destroy it so that it would never rise again. How f*cking daft do you have to be. And the predictable outcome was a invigorated military competitor that we see today.

But then the US and NATO must always have an enemy to justify its defence spending, eh.

 

And that's what it's all about - perpetuating lucrative jobs for life for the boys at the top . . . bit like the space industry when y'think about it? But seriously - it's a bit like 1984 and the permanent war with Eurasia and Eastasia.

 

You know what I think? I think if you are to contribute to some deep thought design structures you should first stop your contributions to the mirroring techniques of whom you are assisting and get real with the lactualitè of dealing with an EPS(Elite Pattern Spotter)

I dont expect respect from anybody because I believe it is an illusion to boost poisonous side of ego which is the source of all trouble and criminal behavior. But at the end of the day I dont think I'm Freddy the Dobbs' attention hoe Nazi figurine.

1 world
Soros
Dugin
Property boom
World disorder

Jeanette
Stripe Horse
Scarlet
Alexa

Do you want me to match them for you, or are you guys doing just alright there being lost in the halls of cognitive bias tests?

F2F in Istanbul?
The Persian Gazelle would do if alone.

Regards,

 

I'm resurrecting this thread for the record only as I am adding some links that explain the lies of G H W (Poppy) Bush about NATO not moving one inch to the east. He always planned to move NATO to the east right up to the borders of the new Russia itself.
Always.

The key to this are discussions between then West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and Mikhail Gorbachev where it was agreed that NATO wouldn't move one inch to the east which was the basis and formulae repeatedly used by US SecState James Baker III and numerous other Western leaders.

But unknown to Gorbachev and Kohl - and apparently all other Western leaders involved in the historic negotiations - G H W (Poppy) Bush position was far different:

Eric Zuess has compiled a list of historical documents from the US National Archives that detail this HERE. A related article of his can be read, HERE.

Meanwhile, the following:

https://washingtonsblog.com/2017/05/americas-top-scientists-confirm-u-s-goal-now-conquer-russia.html

Followed by this:

https://www.strategic-culture.org/n...npp4sdh3zpeKLehFL10D3ca5V6gAE0CHznywIMaH9whvo

 

It's not "America" it is simply the Progressives that control the media and therefore most of the message (although that is fading thankfully)

It's more of a globalist thing, most Americans honestly don't have a thing wrong with Russia. It just all came to be when the Trump-Russia thing was invented and now Russia has become the big bad boogieman that the world wide Progressive movement likes to demonize.

Most of us are able to rationally talk about the good and the bad with Russia without letting emotions get involved.

But I am curious why all the sudden there is a huge "Anti-NATO" push from the pro-Russian crowd? What all the sudden happened to make you guys programmed to act in such a concentrated effort?

Is it the newest part of the Ukraine thing?

 

I didn't read it all but browsed thru instead quickly to see if any sign of "official agreement" was submitted to the pro Russian blog and the site you shared, and I wasn't able to see one single signed document. You're selling Kremlin propaganda like there's official documents backing them and that's just shame.

As I said I quickly browsed. I'm in a restaurant in istanbul full of Russian kids now. Awkward as Robert Paulson's burial.
However :

I can tell according to this the Washington Post is too pro-Russian because they are the US side that are against the Saud as well...

So in a matter of minutes at a lunch table (not launch) I refuted quite a thing... Happy me...

 

Three things, Peter.

1. The documents and records I have used throughout this thread on are all, repeat all, published by the US National Security Archive. In other words these are State papers. There's no conspiracy here, not even when you're quaffing Baklava and Tulumba & Lokma in an Instanbul restaurant (btw, I figured you were back in Istanbul following your "party" post the other evening and the GMT + 3 hour time gap for partying).

2. You really should read the link I provided fully, because it explicitly states that binding agreements between states often occur on a handshake without the need for a formal document. Not that a formal document binds the US anyway. It never has (HERE). The US breaks formal agreements with the same alacrity that a mafia Don dispenses with a competitor trying to muscle in on his drug distribution business.

3. It is a fact that in law a verbal agreement is legally binding. But in the US legal paperwork has become the backbone of inflated lawyers fees.

 

Oh I'm so glad I finally made it back home. What a day... Humid cold, rain, crowded streets and constant rush... Felt a bit like a Boston commuter on steroids for some moment throughout the day.

Anywho... Let me see what you got there:

OK. Let me tell you this first; I was just going to detail my previous post, and might have probably answered your addressed concern with "the documents" in it because I knew you were going to want to confirm how I got to the result on my previous post anyway.

I did not say there was a conspiracy nor did I imply anything in that manner. Now I checked them. Those "documents" -supposing they really do exist by the way- largely consist of internal memos, letters, diary notes which are all about post cold war advises and suggestions like Baker giving Gorbachev advises on how he should handle the post-cold war economy in the USSR. Beyond suggestion, Baker sounds more like he "directs" Gorbachev on not to stick in between market economy and command economy (planned) and to choose either of them instead.

What's more into that is Gorbachev did not mention NATO even once in the memo. Baker makes suggestions about the expansion of NATO's "jurisdiction areas" and Gorbachev agrees. There's no mention of getting new members to NATO from the east. Baker asks if Gorbachev preferred a united Germany with or without ties to NATO and he replies; "Let me say that the approach you have outlined is very possible one. We don't really want to see a replay of Versailles where the Germans were able to arm themselves." Gorbachev by this statement here even goes further than Baker and openly agrees he's for united Germany with NATO ties as assurances for the continuation of German disarmament. I think we can say the USSR wanted NATO to expand east.

So back to your "documents", they seem official records which are NOT binding the US in its relations with the Kremlin. So they are basically null and therefore do not back such hypothesis: "The US officially agreed on not to move NATO to the east a bit". Even if there was a "signed agreement" between USSR and US, that would hardly be binding NATO which is an organization that has a "consensus decision-making".

I did and I regret because I allowed you to insult my intelligence. You shouldn't have. No good. Even Destroyer of Illusions could tell that the Hawaiian natives have never been part of the USSR. Even if they have, they would have been categorized as a "no treaty at all" state.

Irrelevant.

----------------------

Now, having done my part, I'll now declare your punishment:

"I will not contribute to any argument, question, topic, thread, and discussion of the sort that aim, this way or the other, to get free analysis on issues, coming from you or the other 4 accounts you are linked to. I will, however, start deceiving, and making things harder for you".

Regards;

 

Why Peter, that was an interesting and long post of yours. I'm glad you're having fun back home. But it's not helping you at all with comprehension.

Let me point out re your strange diatribe that the US National Security Archive webpage is captioned:

"Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner"

Er, um, seems pretty clear that they are in no doubt that the documents and papers that they publish clearly confirm that the US and various leaders of other NATO nations (Germany, Britain, France etc) confirm that NATO would not expand "one inch" to the East

This is what the NSA says in para 5:

Further down is the following:

I could go on and on. Paragraph after paragraph, meeting after meeting with heads of state of various NATO nations giving the Soviets assurance after assurance that NATO would not expand to the east.

Jack F Matlock, the US Ambassador to the Soviet Union at the time has gone on the record to affirm that Gorbachev received "a clear commitment that if Germany united, and stayed in NATO, the borders of NATO would not move eastward" (in House Committee on International Relations, U.S. Policy Toward NATO Enlargement: Hearing, 104th Cong., 2nd sess., June 20, 1996).

You an even read the contemporaneous U S State Department memorandum "Record of Conversation" between James Baker and Gorbachev on 9 February 1990, where Baker categorically states that NATO would not move one inch to the east (HERE).

But I have to give you a round of applause:



For your valiant but clearly failed attempt to change the categorical historical record on this.

 

I'm not going to insult you this time.
From your quote:

There were no SOVIET borders at the time the NATO expansion -if it ever was matching the description on your NON BINDING memos of course - took place.

 

Yup.....US troops will soon be in Kharkiv...in abundance, why I say this....because they are already in Lviv, Kyiv,Ivano Frankivsk, Sumy, Odessa, Nikolyaev, Kherson, Zaporozhia, Cherkassy, Kharkiv, Slavyansk.

Then Roosha can ask itself....what was the point in invading Donetsk & Lugansk??

 

you know stripey...you could probably make a career outta this NATO bashing dude....whatever transpired did, if it bothers you...take it up with the powers at be....you probably wont get through.

It aint gonna change....deal with it.

 

Let's clarify your designer obfuscation: these are not MY memo's. I don't do memo's.

They're US State Department memo's - along with the many other government papers of other Western nations including Germany, France, the UK etc., that formed part of the stated agreement.

Meanwhile, the argument you deploy above about the Soviet Union -- is one of the most absurd polemics I've yet seen.

As proof of the invalidity of your contention is the fact that various Treaties entered into between the US and the Soviet Union continue to remain in force (the INF Treaty was only repudiated by the US this year 2018, for example). Others remain in force today; for example, the Maritime Boundary Agreement of 1 June 1990.

Sorry, but your argument holds no water. None at all.

But it is a series of endless contradictions:

 

I would like to be able to support my nation's foreign policy and that of NATO. Before the end of the Soviet Union I did.

But then I learned about some of the disturbing events that had taken place (the shocking events of Operation Gladio in Western Europe. for example), of which the designer negotiation of this agreement was done in cynical bad faith and was a designer deceit from day one --- as is witnessed by the contemporaneous words of the now ghost of Poppy Bush who clearly never intended to honour it even as the handshakes were taking place.

I'm not like that Zoom. I personally abide by my agreements (both with or without a written contract) and I abhor those who don't. If you can't trust a person or an entity to abide by an agreement once, you can never trust them again. It's as simple as that.

Over to you buddy...

 

I think so too... the argument sounds as stupid as a Bulgarican Stripper that tries to have others do her job that she's obviously incapable of doing... it must be all those large chunks of data she got to deal with.. And this white haired man behind those retarded glasses?
Do I see other IDs blown in the air.... Like pretty bubbles... all over the internet... at boards like this... ?
That's the million dollar question Id say but that much of money can only cover gas costs of my v8 chevy these days...

Regards,
Draft Saved.

 

Lol...like I said striper, the events unfolded the way they did....if someones not happy, their problem.

 

The thing that the poster abides by could probably be this ancient poem:

"Roses are red, violets are blue...
I have 5 fingers the middle one is for you..."

Aelle, Dec 2, 796 AD, Northumbria.

 

Bless you Peter. I never keep drafts. But if you have this.... can I see it? PM me okay?