Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It wasn't only a matter of some brief words exchanged between Gorbachev and Baker but an intense ongoing discussion between multiple countries spanning years. The German foreign minister at the time, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, acknowledged in a speech made in Tutzing in 1990 and I'm quoting here, 'clarify unequivocally that whatever may happen to the Warsaw Pact, there will be no extension of NATO territory to the East, i.e. nearer the borders of the Soviet Union.' Douglas Hurd, Britain's Foreign Secretary, states the intent of not 'prejudicing Soviet interests and dignity'. Francois Mitterrand, the president of France at the time, talked of negotiating for the guarantees of Russia's security. Margaret Thatcher spoke of similar assurances during her meetings with Gorbachev in 1990. Rodric Braithwaite details in his journals how the following PM, John Major, that expansion into central and eastern Europe would not happen.
It goes on from there. For something that was apparently just a specious nonbinding effort of trying to calm the Russian bear down, they really went to a lot of lengths in order to allay any fears of Russia being backed into a corner.
In terms of bio-labs, the US has plenty of Level 4 Bio-Labs itself, and there is no evidence of such labs in the Ukraine.
Furthermore such labs generally deal with pathogens are you can find Level 4 Labs in Universities, so big deal in relation to this idiotic conspiracy theory.
The main perpetrator's when it comes to poisoning is Russia itself, I can name two Russian poisoning in London and one in Salisbury that ended up killing a woman.
Markov was poisoned by a poisoned Umbrella tip containing Ricin on Waterloo Bridge in London in 1978, with Markov's poisoning mentioned in US series 'Breaking Bad'.
It has been speculated that the Bulgarian Secret Service asked the KGB for help.
In 2006, Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with Polonium-210, which left a trial of radiation across London, and he is buried in a lead lined coffin (casket) in Highgate Cemetery, which is also home to the Tomb of Karl Marx.
Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military officer and double agent for the British intelligence agencies, and his daughter were poisoned with the Russian nerve agent Novichok in 2018, a local woman Dawn Sturgess subsequently died due to the poison.
An added fourth possible poisoning - Alexander Perepilichnyy aged 44, who collapsed and died outside Surrey home after warning of Kremlin death threats, was found to have traces linked to gelsemium in his stomach.
In terms of bio-labs, the US has plenty of Level 4 Bio-Labs itself, and there is no evidence of such labs in the Ukraine.
Furthermore such labs generally deal with pathogens are you can find Level 4 Labs in Universities, so big deal in relation to this idiotic conspiracy theory.
The main perpetrator's when it comes to poisoning is Russia itself, I can name two Russian poisoning in London and one in Salisbury that ended up killing a woman.
Really? So a plethora of formal negotiations and memorandums spanning years doesn't amount to any enforceable agreement? These discussions well superseded merely the status of East Germany and its position in NATO as was already pointed out in the previous quotations. If nothing else these talks indicate that the West's word can quite clearly amount to s***. Russia is complicit in dirty dealings as well but I don't believe they have arrangements with military forces positioned a few hundred kilometres from the USA or Great Britain. Not since Cuba in the 60s at least.
Then tell one of the presiding officials over these laboratories the lack of need for concern. Also, I don't recall there being too many labs from other countries with pathogens housed inside them positioned adjacently to geopolitical rivals for some nondescript arbitrary reason.
Really? So a plethora of formal negotiations and memorandums spanning years doesn't amount to any enforceable agreement? These discussions well superseded merely the status of East Germany and its position in NATO as was already pointed out in the previous quotations. If nothing else these talks indicate that the West's word can quite clearly amount to s***. Russia is complicit in dirty dealings as well but I don't believe they have arrangements with military forces positioned a few hundred kilometres from the USA or Great Britain. Not since Cuba in the 60s at least.
Then tell one of the presiding officials over these laboratories the lack of need for concern. Also, I don't recall there being too many labs from other countries with pathogens housed inside them positioned adjacently to geopolitical rivals for some nondescript arbitrary reason.
The only thing your links suggest is some bio-lab, possible hospital being constructed.
There are labs in most hospitals, and in industrial setting, pharma and biotech research, veterinary and plant research, in educational settings as well as numerous over locations.
The only labs that really matter are the high Level Bio-safety Level 4 labs, however even these exist in Universities and in towns.
There may be one in Harlow in Essex, if the UK Health Security Agency relocates from Porton Down to the former GSK HQ site.
Some agents such as V class nerve agents have been found by accident
During the 1950's ICI a British company at their Jealott's Hill Plant Protection Laboratories, near London, accidentally discovered nerve agent whilst researching pesticides.
One of them, Amiton, was described in a 1955 paper by Ghosh and another chemist, J. F. Newman, as being particularly effective against mites.[ It was brought to market as an insecticide by the company in 1954 but was subsequently withdrawn as too toxic.
This new class of compounds formed a new group of nerve agents called V Agents. The British Government went on to trade their research on VG technology with the United States Government in exchange for information on thermonuclear weapons. The US then went into production of large amounts of the chemically similar, but much more toxic VX in 1961.
Most countries have no reason to carry out research abroad, and have their own labs including maximum security Bio-Safety Labs Level 4 or BSL 4 for short.
Last edited by Brave New World; 03-17-2022 at 10:16 AM..
Some agents such as V class nerve agents have been found by accident
During the 1950's ICI a British company at their Jealott's Hill Plant Protection Laboratories, near London, accidentally discovered nerve agent whilst researching pesticides.
One of them, Amiton, was described in a 1955 paper by Ghosh and another chemist, J. F. Newman, as being particularly effective against mites.[ It was brought to market as an insecticide by the company in 1954 but was subsequently withdrawn as too toxic.
This new class of compounds formed a new group of nerve agents called V Agents. The British Government went on to trade their research on VG technology with the United States Government in exchange for information on thermonuclear weapons. The US then went into production of large amounts of the chemically similar, but much more toxic VX in 1961.
Most countries have no reason to carry out research abroad, and have their own labs including maximum security Bio-Safety Labs Level 4 or BSL 4 for short.
Poisonings of officials by their own government isn't the point of conversation here. Open categorisations doesn't detract from how these biologics are being described or why the USA feels the need to finance and research them in a country like Ukraine. It also doesn't account for why the US is specifically interested in Russian genetic material to the exclusion of other samples from groups like Ukrainians.
Poisonings of officials by their own government isn't the point of conversation here. Open categorisations doesn't detract from how these biologics are being described or why the USA feels the need to finance and research them in a country like Ukraine. It also doesn't account for why the US is specifically interested in Russian genetic material to the exclusion of other samples from groups like Ukrainians.
The US and her allies already have enough facilities to carry out any types research.
The US is a leader in terms of science and doesn't need to set up labs in other countries, and historically American universities often attract extremely talented scientists from across the world.
This all sounds like a rather flimsy conspiracy theory which is now being used as propaganda by the Kremlin.
The Labs you have cited are part of a scheme was originally known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programme, but is now more commonly referred to as the biological engagement programme. It has been successful in supporting former Soviet and other countries to fulfil public health obligations.
The UN is even tired of Russian lies and nonsense, and this is yet more nonsense.
The US and her allies already have enough facilities to carry out any types research.
The US is a leader in terms of science and doesn't need to set up labs in other countries, and historically American universities often attract extremely talented scientists from across the world.
This all sounds like a rather flimsy conspiracy theory which is now being used as propaganda by the Kremlin.
The Labs you have cited are part of a scheme was originally known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programme, but is now more commonly referred to as the biological engagement programme. It has been successful in supporting former Soviet and other countries to fulfil public health obligations.
The UN is even tired of Russian lies and nonsense, and this is yet more nonsense.
Then they don't need facilities positioned dozens of kilometres away from the Russian border which is the reality of the situation. Ukraine doesn't rank anywhere significant on the international metric for achievements in scientific research or academia, not like the major political and economic centres of the world. Public health and threat reduction shouldn't entail the observances of migrational birds through Russia. These labs are financed and overseen by the Pentagon and the military with apparently weaponisable applications.
It also doesn't account for the request of genetic materials from exclusively Russians. Ukraine is made up of a number of ethnic groups including Ukrainians (of course), Crimean Tatars, Bulgarians, Belorussians, Romanians and others. If this were about biological preventiveness then they would be assessing human materials of all existing groups, not just Russians.
In addition, the United States relocated documents and materials related to the facilities' research not too long ago. You have a plethora of countries, not just Russia, insisting on the investigation of these labs. If the intentions are honourable then why the efforts at denial? Why remove pages related to the financing and construction of these facilities?
All NATO members have to agree before a country is allowed to join because they have to be committed to defend that country.
Estonia's views were therefore hardly relevant, and the fact that most major European countries didn't want Ukraine and Georgia meant they could not join.
Of course, Estonia's views are relevant; that's my point. It was you who made it seem as if Europe was united against Ukrainian membership and that the US was the who was pushing for it. But I showed that this was not the case. Regardless, as I mentioned before, it really doesn't matter who is pushing the Ukraine's membership or for expanding NATO farther east. I condemn such moves regardless of who is to "blame."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
As for Russia, they know damn well that unless something is written in a treaty then they have no recourse for action, or excuse to suggest anyone has broken anything.
In terms of NATO it cut it's expenditure, did not have large forces, with US bases remaining in the West, and any enhanced deployments being in response to Russian aggression.
Well, actually they do. Their recourse is war, which as I've mentioned is not illegal, though certain conduct in war may be illegal. But it is clear that there is ample evidence to support Russia's claims that such assurances were given. Whether they were legally binding is neither here nor there as that's not what Russia has claimed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
There are treaties in relation to using radioactive poisons and nerve agents on the streets of western cities, and in relation to intermediate nuclear weapons, but Putin chooses not to heed to those treaties, whilst at the same time claiming that NATO must adhere to a non-existent treaty.
Putin forgets about laws and treaties when it comes to human rights, invasions and war crimes, but is quick to make out Russia is always the victim and never the aggressor.
Russia is hardly the only country that disregards human rights and engages in other egregious behavior, yet the west chooses to be friendly with some of these other countries as it suits our interests. But my point isn't to defend Russia. My overall point in this debate is to raise my objection to the US' membership in NATO. I can condemn Russia's behavior while also expressing disagreement over NATO's policies and over the US' role in NATO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
If the US truly thought it was a one sided alliance, which it did not get anything out of, then it would have left by now and closed the remaining US bases in Europe.
I never claimed the alliance was one-sided. I said the alliance is lopsided. Larger, more powerful countries--to include the US--are guaranteeing security for smaller, less powerful countries who are unable to truly provide the same to the larger countries. As such, the larger countries increase the risk that they will have to go to war to defend these smaller, less powerful countries, again who are unable to truly do the same in reverse. That's what's perverse to me and what I object to.
Moving on, the US clearly sees benefits in NATO as NATO serves as a check on an adversary's influence throughout the world. But that check isn't worth risking more American lives from where I stand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
I have tried to explain that the US has a very much smaller force in Europe these days and that the US emphasis is now on supporting global US operations, US Intelligence and US interests.
The US doesn't need to have a large force in Europe to serve as a check/deterrence via NATO. Hell, the reason why the US decided against sending even a small force to the Ukraine to help train the Ukrainian military was that such a move would be seen as provocative. And then there would be the point of the US getting directly dragged into the conflict if some of our military service members were killed in the Ukraine. A similar deterrent effect can be seen via our troops in South Korea. We have only 30,000 or so troops there, which in the grand scheme of things is not a large number of troops numbers-wise. But the very presence of American troops has arguably served as a powerful check against North Korean efforts to unify the peninsula by force/via invasion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
In terms of Europe, the US spends 5% of it's defence budget, and this amounts to permanent basing of around 64,000 military personnel, which is tiny compared to European NATO forces in Europe, and many European NATO countries devote most of their military resources if not all to NATO, rather than just 5%.
In 2016, non-U.S. NATO members spent $262 billion on defence; in 2020, they will spend $313 billion and European NATO members are now vastly increasing defence expenditure due to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so I expect the figure to top the $400 billion in coming years. This is a significant amount of expenditure and this is without the cyber and intelligence organisations in Europe that work closely with the US.
As I mentioned above, the US doesn't need to have a large force in Europe to serve as a deterrent. And, even then, as an attack against one NATO member is seen as an attack on all NATO members, the number of US troops in Europe is really irrelevant as NATO, for all intents and purposes, can rely on way more American troops than just those stationed in Europe for defense in the event of a NATO war. It's this increased risk of war/action/loss of American lives over a lopsided alliance that I object to.
The US does not need NATO for anything. Those numbers look nice, but they ignore the reality that we are more than capable of defending ourselves without the support of NATO. And you can have many of the other aspects of the alliance without having the particular alliance itself. As an example, countries enter into intelligence agreements all the time outside of NATO. Heck, the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have the Five Eyes (FVEY) alliance as one example, and there are countless other examples. As for overseas bases, again, this isn't something inherent to a NATO alliance, and much of our overseas presence isn't even in NATO countries or otherwise predate the alliance . . . this includes bases that are actually located in the Middle East/Africa. Not to mention that our aircraft carriers also provide critical launching pads/command and control points from which to strike/launch from.
In terms of bio-labs, the US has plenty of Level 4 Bio-Labs itself, and there is no evidence of such labs in the Ukraine.
Furthermore such labs generally deal with pathogens are you can find Level 4 Labs in Universities, so big deal in relation to this idiotic conspiracy theory.
The main perpetrator's when it comes to poisoning is Russia itself, I can name two Russian poisoning in London and one in Salisbury that ended up killing a woman.
Markov was poisoned by a poisoned Umbrella tip containing Ricin on Waterloo Bridge in London in 1978, with Markov's poisoning mentioned in US series 'Breaking Bad'.
It has been speculated that the Bulgarian Secret Service asked the KGB for help.
In 2006, Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with Polonium-210, which left a trial of radiation across London, and he is buried in a lead lined coffin (casket) in Highgate Cemetery, which is also home to the Tomb of Karl Marx.
Sergei Skripal, a former Russian military officer and double agent for the British intelligence agencies, and his daughter were poisoned with the Russian nerve agent Novichok in 2018, a local woman Dawn Sturgess subsequently died due to the poison.
An added fourth possible poisoning - Alexander Perepilichnyy aged 44, who collapsed and died outside Surrey home after warning of Kremlin death threats, was found to have traces linked to gelsemium in his stomach.
I think it is more accurate to state that there are disagreements over whether such assurances were made. But there is certainly evidence to support that they were made.
I've already provided some snippets from declassified US, UK, and other government papers on the subject. Here are some additional snippets from the documents that can be accessed on the George Washington University's website on the papers:
Quote:
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.
Quote:
As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, “We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, “Nothing of the sort will happen.” (See Document 28)
Quote:
Document 05
Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow.
Feb 9, 1990
Source
U.S. Department of State, FOIA 199504567 (National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38)
Even with (unjustified) redactions by U.S. classification officers, this American transcript of perhaps the most famous U.S. assurance to the Soviets on NATO expansion confirms the Soviet transcript of the same conversation. Repeating what Bush said at the Malta summit in December 1989, Baker tells Gorbachev: “The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral advantage in this process” of inevitable German unification. Baker goes on to say, “We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Later in the conversation, Baker poses the same position as a question, “would you prefer a united Germany outside of NATO that is independent and has no US forces or would you prefer a united Germany with ties to NATO and assurances that there would be no extension of NATO’s current jurisdiction eastward?” The declassifiers of this memcon actually redacted Gorbachev’s response that indeed such an expansion would be “unacceptable” – but Baker’s letter to Kohl the next day, published in 1998 by the Germans, gives the quote
Quote:
The key exchange takes place when Baker asks whether Gorbachev would prefer “a united Germany outside of NATO, absolutely independent and without American troops; or a united Germany keeping its connections with NATO, but with the guarantee that NATO’s jurisdiction or troops will not spread east of the present boundary.” Thus, in this conversation, the U.S. secretary of state three times offers assurances that if Germany were allowed to unify in NATO, preserving the U.S. presence in Europe, then NATO would not expand to the east. Interestingly, not once does he use the term GDR or East Germany or even mention the Soviet troops in East Germany. For a skilled negotiator and careful lawyer, it seems very unlikely Baker would not use specific terminology if in fact he was referring only to East Germany.
The Soviet leader responds that “[w]e will think everything over. We intend to discuss all these questions in depth at the leadership level. It goes without saying that a broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable.” Baker affirms: “We agree with that.”
Quote:
When the discussion moves on to foreign policy, in particular the German question, Gates asks, “What did Kryuchkov think of the Kohl/Genscher proposal under which a united Germany would be associated with NATO, but in which NATO troops would move no further east than they now were? It seems to us to be a sound proposal.” Kryuchkov does not give a direct answer but talks about how sensitive the issue of German unification is for the Soviet public and suggests that the Germans should offer the Soviet Union some guarantees. He says that although Kohl and Genscher’s ideas are interesting, “even those points in their proposals with which we agree would have to have guarantees. We learned from the Americans in arms control negotiations the importance of verification, and we would have to be sure.”
Also, as for relying on Gorbachev's public statements on what happened to bolster your point, I note that Gorbachev has stated multiple things publicly on the matter.
Here is what he stated at one point:
Quote:
Ten years later, in an interview with the German newspaper Bild, Gorbachev complained that the West had tricked Moscow. "Many people in the West were secretly rubbing their hands and felt something like a flush of victory -- including those who had promised us: 'We will not move 1 centimeter further east,'" he was quoted as saying.
Then they don't need facilities positioned dozens of kilometres away from the Russian border which is the reality of the situation. Ukraine doesn't rank anywhere significant on the international metric for achievements in scientific research or academia, not like the major political and economic centres of the world. Public health and threat reduction shouldn't entail the observances of migrational birds through Russia. These labs are financed and overseen by the Pentagon and the military with apparently weaponisable applications.
It also doesn't account for the request of genetic materials from exclusively Russians. Ukraine is made up of a number of ethnic groups including Ukrainians (of course), Crimean Tatars, Bulgarians, Belorussians, Romanians and others. If this were about biological preventiveness then they would be assessing human materials of all existing groups, not just Russians.
In addition, the United States relocated documents and materials related to the facilities' research not too long ago. You have a plethora of countries, not just Russia, insisting on the investigation of these labs. If the intentions are honourable then why the efforts at denial? Why remove pages related to the financing and construction of these facilities?
The Labs claims have been looked in to and are nonsense, whilst BSL 4 Labs are in a number of towns ans cities in Europe, so what.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
