Now do Ukraine giving up its nukes in exchange for security assurances against threats or the use of force on Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty, pursuant to the Budapest Memorandum.
Ukraine
- Thread starter Dadar
- Start date
LOL... so what you have is AI saying people say people said it.
Was. There. Any. Formal. Agreement?
And that's actually written down. An actual agreement.
It has been well known for 10 or 15 years at least that the United States and Western Europe lied to russia. Russia has good reasons to be suspicious of the United states. Do your own research and get yourself up to par if you don't believe this. (Ai is right about 80 or 90% of the time, and I'm not going to prove that two plus two equals four)This has been common knowledge for a long time. I don't know why you ask whether there was a formal agreement because what I quoted said there wasn't. The Russians were dumb enough to trust the West.
Is dailybuck a reincarnation of nat Algren/warrior poet?
Rather than go back and forth, I will cite one link to what is obvious. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-...on-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
Part of the quote from the link is :
"Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6)
Sooo... no. That's what I thought. There was no agreement.
You might want to examine the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act where Russia accepted NATO expansion in exchange for concessions. This would be after 1990. The deal states "NATO has expanded and will continue to expand its political functions". Yeltsin didn't like the idea of NATO expansion but said, "the negative consequences of NATO's enlargement will be reduced to the minimum through the NATO–Russia deal". Russian acceptance of NATO expansion is on the record... unlike your implied promise that was never codified.
Take a knee, comrade.
Comrade, that 1997 paper was merely hot air. Here is what Claude had to say.:
"It was not a binding treaty — it was explicitly a political commitment, and this was true by design on NATO's side.
Why it wasn't a treaty:
NATO deliberately refused to make the Founding Act legally binding. That's a key, well-documented fact — the U.S. and NATO wanted the flexibility to keep expanding without being constrained by treaty obligations to Russia.
It was signed as a political declaration between NATO and Russia, not ratified as a treaty by national legislatures the way something like the CFE Treaty (Conventional Forces in Europe) was.
The text itself is full of the language of a political framework, not enforceable law: phrases like "shared desire," "affirm their shared commitment," and structures built around "consultation" and "joint decision-making" rather than binding legal obligations with enforcement mechanisms."
I would note that you gave no citations for your post and that Claude is very specific. If you disagree with Claude be specific. Also, I would point out that people with your viewpoint in this thread had said that because there was no formal treaty that the promises made by the United States in 1990 were irrelevant. If you're going to take that view, the 1997 papers are not binding either.
Damn, you really are as stupid as a box of rocks.Founding Act | NATO Official text
So a written agreement acknowledged by the president of Russia carries no weight but the musings of people seven years prior that were never officially recorded anywhere are iron-clad? Tell us how Putin's balls taste and then GTFO with your BS, comrade.
I never said the oral agreements [made by about 6 heads of state] were ironclad dummy. I am saying that they were relevant. [If it isn't beyond your reading capacity try to understand the second to the last sentence in the post you are criticizing -- I was explicitly discussing relevance] In the meantime, you are giving great stock to a written document that was designed to be open ended and not enforceable.
Founding Act | NATO Official text
So a written agreement acknowledged by the president of Russia carries no weight but the musings of people seven years prior that were never officially recorded anywhere are iron-clad? Tell us how Putin's balls taste and then GTFO with your BS, comrade.
"During the 1990 summit, Zoellick says President Gorbachev accepted the idea of German unification within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, based on the principle that every country should freely choose its own alliances.
“I was in those meetings, and Gorbachev has [also] said there was no promise not to enlarge NATO,” Zoellick recalls. Soviet Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, later president of Georgia, concurred, he says. Nor does the treaty on Germany’s unification include a limit on NATO enlargement.
idk if I should believe this guy who was there at the negotiations, or random AI slop from Claude
hls.harvard.edu
“I was in those meetings, and Gorbachev has [also] said there was no promise not to enlarge NATO,” Zoellick recalls. Soviet Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, later president of Georgia, concurred, he says. Nor does the treaty on Germany’s unification include a limit on NATO enlargement.
idk if I should believe this guy who was there at the negotiations, or random AI slop from Claude
‘There was no promise not to enlarge NATO’ - Harvard Law School
Robert Zoellick, the U.S. diplomat who helped negotiate the end of the Cold War, says Vladimir Putin’s claims about Ukraine are part of a disinformation campaign.
hls.harvard.edu