re: Tucker Carlson: why I’m interviewing Putin

quote:

---

Right. Seems he'd be licking his chops for a clear contemporaneous example of this that he can point to and that everyone here would be able to readily see, versus just this vague assertion that such information from Putin is already "out there" in some other various amalgamations from the past.

---

I mean, these aren't really vague assertions. Here are Putin's statements from Munich in 2007. LINK On page 28 for the specific reference of the ABM. There are references to several other treaties, including the IRNF treaty from which the US withdrew in 2018 I believe, as the Trump administration accused the Russians of non-compliance.

As a sidenote, the video of this speech in particular is still hosted on the World Economic Forum's YT page.


Here is the link to the memorandum of a March 21st, 1997 meeting between Boris Yeltsin and Bill Clinton, which shows that the US/Russian positions are basically intractable.

LINK

On page 106 of this document I believe.

Some quick quotes that I can put together while on my phone:

Yeltsin:

quote:

---

Our position has not changed. It remains a mistake for NATO to move eastward. But I need to take steps to alleviate the negative consequences of this for Russia. I am prepared to enter into an agreement with NATO not because I want to but because it is a forced step. There is no other solution for today. The principal issues for me are the following. The agreement must be legally binding -- signed by all 16 Allies. Decisions by NATO are not to be taken without taking into account the concerns or opinions of Russia. Also, nuclear and conventional arms cannot move eastward into new members to the borders of Russia, thus creating a new cordon sanitaire aimed at Russia.

But one thing is very important: enlargement should also not embrace the former Soviet republics. I cannot sign any agreement without such language. Especially Ukraine. If you get them involved, it will create difficulties in our talks with Ukraine on a number of issues. We followed closely Solana's activities in Central Asia. They were not to our liking. He was pursuing an anti-Russian course.

---

Clinton:

quote:

---

If we were to agree that no members of the former Soviet Union could enter NATO, it would be a bad thing for our attempt to build a new NATO, but it would also be a bad thing for your attempt to build a new Russia. I am not naive. I understand you have an interest in who gets into NATO and when. We need to make sure that all these are subjects that we can consult about as we move forward — consult means talk about; it means making sure that we're aware of your concerns and that you understand our decisions and our positions and our thinking. But consider what a terrible message it would be if we were to make the kind of supposedly secret deal you're suggesting. First of all, there are no secrets in this world. Second, the message would be, "we're still organized against Russia -- but there's a line across which we won't go." In other words, instead of creating a new NATO that helps move toward an integrated, undivided Europe, we'd have a larger NATO waiting for Russia to do something bad.

---

The actual documentary evidence is much more interesting than any conspiracy.

Regardless, the intractability comes from the fact that before the USSR even fell, Warsaw Pact countries formed a working group, called the Visegrad Group, in order to build a relationship with the West with the aim of integrating into Europe broadly. That process started in 1988, and the conversations continued through the 90's, with several stipulations to be met by those countries. By the time of this phone call with Yeltsin, those countries were well on their way to integration, with Poland ratifying a National Strategy for Integration in January of 1997 and the other countries of the group also having signed agreements with Western organizations.

I'm more than happy to be corrected, but the only places I've seen this evidence discussed and reproduced has been in specialty foreign policy journals to which I subscribe. Does anyone have a guess as to why this version does not have any traction in the media, but the version that James Baker made some vague promise about NATO expansion to Yeltsin or Gorbachev does?