Comments by "Emir" (@irongron) on "The Fatal Events That Destroyed Putin’s Love For NATO" video.

On the NATO issue at the end of the show that you put to Mark, I have to beg to differ. It's so important I put it in a new comment. "Not one inch to the East" referred to the then East Germany, The USSR had not yet collapsed to the Warsaw pact still existed. This is a HUGE point the vatniks never get right Pyotr. From the Brookings article - Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No" - We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
17
Putins poke face is great but his chess game is :face-fuchsia-poop-shape:. Quote of the century. Holy Mother of God, you are not wrong about the Victoria Nuland thing vatniks bring up Pyyotr. Great conversation as usual, been waiting for this part 2! Mark is a heavyweight in Ruzzian affairs who got the invasion wrong, just saying. I beg to differ on Mark's take on Donbas, slightly, I was there in 2014, but that's neither here nor there. Lost a home in Makiivka. But I still find him very interesting. Look, on Ruzzia joining NATO, would that not have been akin to letting the Fox into the metaphorical Henhouse ? Knowing Ruzzia's imperial mindset and historical modus operandi. Was this not a worry ? Mark even mentioned the degeneration to Stalinism with the large families and fecundity of women etc. On the "Ruzzian" multi-ethnic state that Pyotr, identified as bogus, (and racist re: the airport) - It is no co-incidence that the largest article on neo-fascism in Encyclopaedia Britannica is the Russia article.
2
@martinoneill5804 The plans to take back Crimea have been around since Yetlsin's time. Yeltsin prevented the nationalists in Russia to do so because, If Crimea can leave Ukraine then it would have set a precedent to allow Chechniya to leave Russia. I saw an interview almost ten years ago, where a bunch of journalists kept asking Putin, was it the American meddling in Syria that made him decide to take Crimea. and he got angry with them all and told them, to shut up and he said (paraphrasing) - "don't you all know anything ? I wasn't Syria, it was Yugoslavia, that's when I made the decision to take back Crimea", that means he made the decision in 1999 and waited for the right time. That was well before Sochi, so the joining NATO issue had nothing whatsoever to do with Crimea in 2014. That's just BS. I have heard Matlock in interviews and he says a lot of things that are really problematic. Like most people who only spent time in Moscow, he has a pro-Russian bias. Kissinger was wrong about Ukraine and changed his mind, he was wrong about the idiotic notion of a "chat". Chatting to Putin does not achieve anything. ok ? DI all the endless chatting by Merkel or Macron have with Putin achieve anything ? No. Matlock and Kissinger obviously never saw that interview in 2015 that I saw or they wouldn't have been talking such nonsense about a chat. Putin was never serious about the NATO thing, he wanted to jump the queue and be admitted ahead of what he thought was insignificant countries, without due process as was mentioned in the interview. I have lived in Ukraine for a decade, how many years did Matlock and Kissinger spend here ? Zero.
1
@martinoneill5804 The Soviet Union was the Russian Empire by another name, Russia is no different, it's an empire too. The kremlin in Moscow is the same seat of government of the USSR. The same Soviet KGB d-bags are still in power there. Putin proved exactly why NATO has to exist, because of RuZZian aggression. Have the Baltics been re-invaded ? NO.... Why ? NATO protection. NATO isn't a threat to RuZZia, it's just an impediment to its imperial ambitions. I'd like you to go to the wikipedia page "List of wars involving Russia" and tell me which of the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of wars listed pre-1947 was "provoked" by "NATO expansion" ? Keeping in mind that Moscow started World War II as an Axis Allie by invading Poland in 1939 2 weeks after Germany did.
1