Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (963721)	9/13/2016 2:33:02 AM
From: RMF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574681

"failed to uphold a promise that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe". I mentioned in a previous post that it was Bush Jr. that shoved NATO down Russia's throat. Unless you've got evidence to the contrary then I assume I'm right about that. I believe that means we can thank the Republicans for screwing things up so much.

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (963721)	9/26/2016 11:31:23 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574681

Russia is being forced to forestall NATO’s eastward march as a matter of self-defense. It isn't a matter of self-defense. And it wouldn't be even if there had been a promise not to expand NATO. But there was no such promise. ----- ...The two key facts are these: 1. There are no agreements or treaties that prohibit NATO from accepting new members. 2. There also were no secret assurances not to expand NATO eastward, which are now hinted about. It is now alleged that promises were made to then-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev by Chancellor Kohl and U.S. Secretary of State James Baker in 1989-1990. The purported proof is offered in now declassified reports of the Kohl and Baker talks with Gorbachev. James A. Baker, speaking at the American Academy in Berlin on October 7, 2014, dismissed the claims as baseless. On October 16, 2014, Mikhail Gorbachev confirmed Baker’s assertion, saying that the “topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed…not brought up in those years.” Likewise, Hans Dietrich Genscher, former German foreign minister, also affirmed Baker, “This was never the subject of negotiations, and most certainly not a negotiation result.” The now declassified reports show that George H.W. Bush, Kohl and Gorbachev shared their concerns – and resolve – about three developments: 1. The disintegration of the East German SED regime. 2. The Soviet leader’s decision for a united Germany to remain in NATO. 3. Uncertainty about the status of the 380,000 Soviet soldiers in the GDR and understanding that only the Bundeswehr, not foreign forces, would be stationed in the territory of the former GDR after unification. Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze in 1989-1990 also fought against a catastrophic Soviet military intervention that would deny East Germans the right to decide their own fate, as Gorbachev promised. The reason for that was largely economic: The Soviet Union simply could not afford to continue policies that cost 25% of the Soviet GDP. Eventually, Gorbachev agreed to German unification and its membership in NATO. Putin has scorned Gorbachev’s refusal to use the 380,000 Soviet soldiers in East Germany to keep control over the country. Gorbachev agreed that nations could decide which alliances to join. The issue of NATO taking new members in 1990 was not on the agenda. After all, the Warsaw Pact still existed in 1990. The West did not disappoint Gorbachev for his support of Germany. He did not come away empty-handed. He achieved agreements for: 1. A new German-Soviet treaty. 2. A CSCE Conventional Forces in Europe treaty reducing the number of military forces in Europe. 3. A German-Polish treaty settling the Oder-Neisse border, which established stability on the Russian border. 4. NATO also assured Russia repeatedly that it was not a threat to the Soviet Union. 5. NATO changed its strategy to make nuclear weapons truly of last resort, minimizing the principle of “first use.” 6. The Allies changed both “forward defense” and “flexible response” concepts that had been against east European and Soviet territory. 7. NATO also extended a hand of friendship to establish diplomatic liaison with NATO and later signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act. Furthermore, President George H.W. Bush also instructed that, as far as the Untied States was concerned, there would be no “dancing on the Wall” – i.e., no triumphalism over the end of the Cold War... theglobalist.com ---------- There was however a promise from Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territory. A promise they did not keep.

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (963721)	10/22/2016 3:48:53 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Recommended By zax Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574681

Breach of the agreement Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation Further information: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation In February 2014, Russian forces seized or blockaded various airports, as well as other strategic sites throughout Crimea. [20] The troops were attached to the Russian Black Sea Fleet stationed in Crimea, [21] likely placing Russia in violation of the Budapest Memorandum. The Russian Foreign Ministry had confirmed the movement of armoured units attached to the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea, but asserted that they are acting within the scope of the various agreements between the two countries. Other official Russian sources denied that the units in the area of Sevastopol International Airport, specifically, were attached to the Black Sea Fleet. [22] Russia responded by supporting a referendum on whether the Crimea should join the Russian Federation. Russia announced the referendum was being conducted by 'local forces'. On 16 March, Russia annexed Crimea. Ukraine vigorously protested the action as a violation of Article 1 of the Budapest Memorandum. In response to the crisis, the Ukrainian parliament requested that the Memorandum's signatories reaffirm their commitment to the principles enshrined in the political agreement, and further asked that they hold consultations with Ukraine to ease tensions. [23] On 24 March 2014, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper led the rest of the G7 partners at an ad-hoc meeting during the Nuclear Security Summit in The Hague to suspend Russian membership, partially, said Harper, because Russia had violated the Budapest Memorandum. He said that Ukraine had given up its nuclear weapons "on the basis of an explicit Russian guarantee of its territorial integrity. By breaching that guarantee, President Putin has provided a rationale for those elsewhere who needed little more than that already furnished by pride or grievance to arm themselves to the teeth." Harper also indicated support for Ukraine by saying he would work with the new Ukrainian government towards a free trade agreement. Ukrainian-Canadians make up roughly 3.3% of the population of Canada. [24] In February 2016 Sergey Lavrov claimed that "Russia never violated Budapest memorandum. It contained only one obligation, not to attack Ukraine with nukes". [25] However, Canadian journalist Michael Colborne pointed out "there are actually six obligations in the Budapest Memorandum, and the first of them is “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine." Colborne also pointed out that a broadcast of Lavrov’s claim on the Twitter account of Russia's embassy in the United Kingdom actually "provided a link to the text of the Budapest Memorandum itself with all six obligations, including the ones Russia has clearly violated — right there for everyone to see." Steven Pifer, an American diplomat who was involved in drafting the Budapest Memorandum, later commented that "what does it say about the mendacity of Russian diplomacy and its contempt for international opinion when the foreign minister says something that can be proven wrong with less than 30 seconds of Google fact-checking?" [26] en.wikipedia.org