There is one of the factor(s) here that we seem to be forgetting, and we did, though it was not a legally binding assurance, we gave categorical assurances to Gorbachev, back when the Soviet Union existed, that if a United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not be moved eastward…. [The interviewer interjects] but that assurance was given to the Soviet Union [Matlock responds] That is right. It is not legally binding, but it was, you might say, a geopolitical deal.
When does a geopolitical deal become a “forever-more-promise” to a political entity that ceases to exist?” Never.
Matlock said this about Russia: “it seems to me that clearly Russia could be a threat in the future. No one can deny that.”
John Mearsheimer denies the threat. The “Realist” from the University of Chicago is a chief proponent of the “NATO Expansion Made Russia Invade Ukraine.” On October 31, 2018 in Bucharest he made a presentation at the University of Bucharest. The presentation was titled “NATO In the Age Of Trump.” The video and audio are available at https://youtu.be/AlaHGYlXntQ. In that presentation at approximately minute 50 Mearsheimer says to his Romanian audience:
Despite the resurrection of Russian power, despite all the paranoia in Eastern Europe about the Russian threat, Russia is not much of a threat to Eastern Europe today. It is a declining great power. It's just not that big of a threat.
Now Mearsheimer’s dogma, which is the same dogma espoused by Jeffrey Sachs and other purveyors of Russian talking points, has wormed its way into Trump’s foreign policy. The dogma is a lie. Unless Trump’s “National Security Strategy” is revised very soon, the strategy is an open invitation for Putin to rearm and invade soon the Baltic nations, Poland, and perhaps Scandanavian countries. Trump’s policy will lead to wider war and more instability. The USA is now the greatest source of instability in the world.
REPRISE
In 1990 Bush, Kohl, and Gorbachev were negotiating German reunification and whether a reunified Germany could join NATO. When the deadly-serious negotiations ended there was no “promise” that NATO would not expand eastward towards Russia.
Anyone investigating the broken-promise-issue should read William Taubman’ s book “Gorbachev: His Life and Times” published in 2017 by WW Norton & Company. From approximately pages 468 to 571 of his book Taubman threads the ”NATO-promise-no-eastward-expansion issue” into his narrative about German reunification. The narrative shows Gorbachev opposing reunification until he didn’t. Near the end of his narrative Taubman, at page 564, summarizes the agreement between Kohl and Gorbachev: “United Germany would consist of the FRG and the GDR and Berlin within their current borders, thus eliminating the danger it would seek to recapture lands lost to Poland and other East European countries during the war…United Germany, Gorbachev said, can be a member of NATO.” Taubman writes more: “The issue of NATO expansion farther into Eastern Europe had not come up in the latest talks between Gorbachev and Kohl,” page564. At another section, pages 552-553, Taubman writes of Gorbachev saying: “German NATO membership would not in fact threaten Soviet security,” and “If Germany was to be sovereign its people should decide for themselves which alliance to join.”
United States Secretary of State Baker and German Foreign Minister Genscher agreed there would be no eastward expansion of a reunified Germany’s borders. The eastward expansion of reunited Germany and the eastward expansion of NATO were two different issues often comingled by writers. Baker and Genscher were not the final decision-makers. Their agreement was a derivative of the primary agreements between USA President Bush, Germany’s Helmut Kohl and Russia’s Gorbachev: a reunited Germany had the right to choose which alliance, if any, Germany would belong to. Germany’s borders would not change no matter if the nation was in the Warsaw Pact (France saw that as absurd), NATO, or independent of any alliance. In the end, there was no agreement that NATO would not expand eastwards, despite all the negotiations between Germany, Russia and the USA, and Gorbachev’s seemingly permanent insistence that NATO not expand eastwards.
President George Bush did not agree to limit NATO expansion. Taubman writes of Bush: “Limiting NATO jurisdiction to only on-half of a reunited Germany was not possible, Bush concluded. Disavowing any further NATO expansion was unwise .For as Bush told Mitterand in April [1990] no other organization could replace NATO as the guarantor of Western security and stability.” There was never a “promise” between Bush, Kohl , and Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastwards towards Russia. Gorbachev silently conceded the point to the everlasting unhappiness of his successors.
Gorbachev acknowledged sovereignty as the basic and legitimate principle that makes a nation a nation. At page 552 Taubman recounts GW Bush and Gorbachev negotiating with each other about German reunification:
Bush: “It is the right of any sovereign country to choose alliances. If the government [of Germany] would not want to stay in NATO, or even tell our troops to get out, we would accept that choice.”
Gorbachev: “That’s how we will formulate it then: The United States and the Soviet Union agree that a united Germany…would decide on its own which alliances he would be a member of.”
In 1991 the Soviet Union dissolved into several sovereign nations, all having the right to choose their alliances, if any. The claim that the West and the USA promised not to expand NATO eastward is not supported in Taubman’s book. Today that claim is a false narrative meant to repudiate and undo Gorbachev’s decisions and an effort to destroy some of the sovereign nations that emerged from the Soviet Union’s dissolution.
A Piers Morgan Video Captures The Arguments Over NATO, Russia and Ukraine
I watched a Piers Morgan video of a four-man panel discussing Ukraine. The show was made in late November or early December 1994. The panel consisted of General Mark Kimmit, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, under George W. Bush, Jake Broe a military veteran with a YouTube channel supporting Ukraine, Scott Horton, a long-time libertarian and an anti-war activist who has a program on Pacifica Radio and Benny Johnson. Wikipedia describes Johnson as “a conservative political commentator who had contributed to Breitbart News, The Blaze, National Review, The Daily Caller, and BuzzFeed, being fired from the lattermost after it was discovered that he had plagiarized much of his work.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Johnson_(columnist). As of December 15, 2024 Morgan’s video is at https://youtu.be/VPsMhYye7Uo
These people, their credentials, their professional history and viewpoints are easy to find on the internet. In a video you can see facial expressions and head movements which often communicate as much as the spoken word. You can hear intonations and inflections in voices. Watching a video does not qualify as a direct personal experience, but a video gives you a perception of the person. Kimmit and Broe were poker-faced for the most part, perhaps their military background had taught them to remain composed in public settings. Johnson and Horton were not poker faced and not composed. Their behavior was often sarcastic and hostile to Broe but not to Kimmit, even though Kimmit and Broe were usually on the same page regarding Ukraine. Certain parts of the video seemed a prelude to a bar-fight.
The divide that separates Johnson and Horton from Broe and Kimmit is this: Johnson and Horton adhere to the “broken-promise” theme and do not see Eastern European nations as sovereign states if they were formerly a part of the now dissolved Soviet Union. Broe does, as does Kimmit. Broe disputes the “broken-promise” theme. Kimmit does not dispute it, he avoids it.
General Kimmit’s Avoidance
Piers Morgan, from minute 4.18 to 4.43 says to Kimmit: [The argument that]“basically Ukraine brought this on themselves and that it was the encroachment as Russia saw it that the encroachment of NATO which was then going to include Ukraine and they [Russia] had no choice but to defend themselves against this NATO encroachment. What do you say to this argument?”
Kimmit’s response minute 4.30 to minute 4.55: “That’s been the great debate over NATO enlargement since 1991. At that time Secretary James Baker [US Secretary of State] agreed with [German Foreign Minister] Genscher that there would not be any eastward expansion.” Kimmit makes no reference to George HW Bush overruling Baker and Genscher or that Bush had the opinion “Disavowing any further NATO expansion was unwise.” Kimmit made other notable remarks:
“We have allowed ourselves to be self-deterred”
“A sovereign nation [meaning Ukraine] has the right to defend itself”
“I don’t think they [Russia] needed to attack,”
Russia is on a “killing spree” in Ukraine.
Broe referred to Putin’s well-known dream of restoring the Russian empire, but Johnson and Horton dismissed that as BS without referring to Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
Johnson’s theme was that funds spent for Ukraine are better spent at home, as if the funds were not being spent in the USA. Johnson did not recognize that he was harping on an idea rejected by the 101 House Republicans and 25 Senate Republicans who voted in April to fund Ukraine. Johnson also asserted and that it was “suicidal” for the USA to allow Ukraine to launch ATACMS into Russia. Apparently Johnson is unaware that the Biden administration briefed the Trump people on the use ATACMS and that, thus far, Trump’s adviser General Kellogg, has not yet made a ruckus. Morgan made an odd statement for a talk-show host. He said to Johnson: “I am generally curious… I respect your opinion.”[From minute 7.10 and 7.28 in the video] It was odd for Morgan to give an ego boost to a panel-member.
To display his disapproval of Broe, Johnson often exhibited silent on-screen antics such as smirking, derisive smiles, hand-waving, pursing lips, scowling, and leaning into the camera. Johnson looked like a toddler performing in front of a mirror. He advocated for “America First” and very much disapproves of American aid to Ukraine. Morgan boxed Johnson into a corner with this exchange between minute 10:40 and minute 12:03, showing how “America First” means abandoning Europe to Russia.
Morgan: “If a deal was done and Putin got to keep the land he’s stolen along with Crimea and his next action is to go in and invade Poland just as Nazis in Germany did in 1939, what should America do in that position, given that Poland is part of NATO?”
At first Johnson evaded Morgan’s question and responded that “would be suicidal for Russia” because NATO’s article 5 would be invoked. Morgan persisted asking Johnson, “What do you think morally America should do in that eventuality?
Johnson hesitated and replied: “I would have to leave it up to the military mind some of them are on this panel. I’ll say this. This is my stance permanently. In the Ukrainian war and in virtually in all situations an ugly peace is better than a hot war.” Morgan replied: “I find it strange you wouldn’t say obviously you’ve got to kick him [Putin] out of Poland.”
Broe spoke from about minute 12 to minute 15:30 and again from minute 32 to34 with a few comments in between those times. He defended the USA and Ukraine and disputed Horton’s assertions that the war is “a civil war” and aterritorial dispute. There was a moment when Broe stepped into the Nordstream pipeline issue, and Johnson asked Broe if he had better sources than the NewYork Times, an odd question for a media professional with a plagiarism background. Broe did not take “bait” offered by Johnson and Horton who frequently screamed at Broe. Morgan did not seem much interested in Broe and did not press him. Morgan was more interested in Horton and Johnson.
Horton said, at minute 17.12,: “We are taking Ukraine away from Russia,” implying that Ukraine is not a sovereign nation. Given his experience, you’d expect Horton to be civil during Morgan’s show. Instead, Horton was in a rage. He called Broe a “dumb bastard,” “a fool”, “an idiot,” and said “he can bloviate all he wants” because Broe disputed Horton’s assertions. According to Horton “the purpose of the war now is to prolong it for the strategic weakening of Russia”[ minute21.46] at a later time [minute 24.25-25.15] Kimmit responds “I don’t believe that your guest that says we are doing this intentionally to bleed out the Russians. ..No administration is that smart. No administration is that stupid.” Horton did not interject or even make a face at Kimmit.
Perhaps Horton was hawking his latest publication “Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine.” Morgan asked Horton what he wanted from Trump’s foreign policy. Horton replied ”I prefer pure Ron Paul, non-interventionism and abandoning all these alliances and come home.” Of course that would make Putin and Xi very happy. How about Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, New Zealand? Probably not so much. Through out the video there was not a single reference to China.
Horton said the Donbas is gone and to forget about it. He also said: “you can argue if France, Germany, and Poland and [America or the United States] sent our NATO forces into Ukraine we could liberate the Donbas but that would be at the cost of thermo-nuclear war.” Kimmit was watching and shook his head “no.”
There was affinity between Johnson and Horton. From minute 16:40 to 17.10they agreed that the American government overthrew the Ukrainian government “twice in ten years.” They had a brief feeding frenzy from minute 32 to minute34 when Broe said “America is not fighting this war. There are no American forces on the ground” a response to Johnson who suggested the war in Ukraine was little different from America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Broe also asked the question: “Is the world better off today” because of the Soviet Union’s dissolution. Horton could not resist: he sarcastically interjects “What a profound question.”
In the past 30 years the “Broken Promise” theme has been the subject of hundreds of articles, videos, and stories. Horton’s book, “Provoked, Chapter 1,George H.W. Bush” endnote 1 says “This book contains more than 6,600 footnotes and 7,800 citations.” Chapter 1 has 292 endnotes. Horton looks to be a serious author and hard worker. I wondered what new or different information Horton is offering in “Provoked.” I downloaded a publicly available copy of all his endnotes for “Provoked.” I read the endnotes to “Chapter 1: George H.W. Bush.” I was wondering if Horton made any reference to William Taubman’s book “Gorbachev.” So far I have not found a reference. Maybe I missed it, but I don’t think so. Horton may not realize that Presidents think-ahead. Maybe President George HW Bush was thinking ahead, someday Poland might want to be in NATO.
