Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

[Doktor]

I don't remember where I read, that vertical takeoff halves the effective range of an aircraft, and/or its weapon payload. Even if it less limiting with F35, it still reduces its capabilities.....

Date? Who to whom? Please specify clearly. I apologise but I have a plane to catch and do not have time to answer further at present.

Since you insist...

On Feb. 10, 1990, between 4 and 6:30 p.m., Genscher spoke with Shevardnadze. According to the German record of the conversation, which was only recently declassified, Genscher said: "We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east." And because the conversion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: "As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general."

Shevardnadze replied that he believed "everything the minister (Genscher) said."

[snapper]

This seems to me a little like the right of the older generation to gamble as they wish with their own money; who gave the Foreign Minister of (West) Germany the right to give up the freedoms and self determinations of Central and Eastern Europeans in 1990 in discussions specifically relating to German re-unifaction? Certainly no Polish, Hungarian, Romanian or even your own Macedonian Government ceded such decisions to a German foreign Minister - and for good historical reasons it could be argued. Was this signed into Treaty or even 'Memorandum'? No such thing and as we are now all too well aware pieces of paper that we call 'Accords' (Helsinki), 'Founding Charters' (UN) or 'Memorandums' (Budapest) or even the INF Treaty (https://www.armscontrol.org/ACT/2016...reach-Persists) mean nothing to an aggressor or a hell bent appeasement minded 'West' in today's world. Appeasement never worked long term and no German FM has ever had the right to make commitments regarding the sovereign liberties of other nations in informal or formal discussions with the Muscovites. I do not question the veracity of the conversation you cite my friend but I do - and I think legitimately - question any legal or Treaty binding nature of such a conversation.

I was actually at the Munich Security Conference briefly earlier this year but missed the Lavrov speech where he tried to convince the Germans that Soviet Muscovy letting them re-unify deserved their gratitude. They laughed naturally as it had been Soviet Muscovite policy to divide Germany since WW2... "Bring down the wall" rings a bell from memory.

When even the Germans regard this a blatant distortion of history I am not sure what sort of credibility or legality you wish to give to Herr Gs discussions with Shevardnadze regarding German reunification, Shevardnadze who of course himself started the move toward true Georgian independence due to his blatant falsification of 'democratic votes' etc in such obvious manners that sparked the 'Rose Revolution' in Georgia.

[Doktor]

You asked dates and names. Der Spiegel says German declasified documents say this.

Huge rant, but nothing about the topic on hand.

[snapper]

You asked dates and names. Der Spiegel says German declasified documents say this.

I ask what right, who gave him the right, and if it was internationally agreed for Her G to give such commitments? Unless you have better information than I have had and do have access to I do not believe Herr G's remarks to be in any way 'binding'.

Huge rant, but nothing about the topic on hand.

Being I believe the 'invisibility' of the Armata T-14?

[S2]

" '...We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east.' And because the conversion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: 'As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general...'"

So NATO membership policies were defined and bed-rocked at that moment by a W. German foreign minister bent on telling Shevardnadze anything he'd like hearing that would finally secure E. Germany painlessly from the Soviets?

He couldn't speak for NATO. Genscher held no such mandate. Genscher may have counted upon Shevardnadze hearing what he wished to hear but there was nothing formalizing such.

Further, not likely NATO endorses any membership policy failing to recognize self-determination as a key tenet. Very likely, however, a W. German foreign minister would say anything to assuage the Soviets WRT E. Germany.

[S2]

"...Huge rant, but nothing about the topic on hand."

Not so. It's relevance lies here-

"...When even the Germans regard this a blatant distortion of history I am not sure what sort of credibility or legality you wish to give to Herr Gs discussions with Shevardnadze regarding German reunification..."

I was writing my comments as Sara posted her's. We reached the same perspective independently.

The Genscher/Shevardnadze meeting set no policies WRT NATO.

[Officer of Engineers]

I ask what right, who gave him the right, and if it was internationally agreed for Her G to give such commitments? Unless you have better information than I have had and do have access to I do not believe Herr G's remarks to be in any way 'binding'.

The right of a voting member of NATO and as one of the three major force contributors to Fulda Gap fight.

So NATO membership policies were defined and bed-rocked at that moment by a W. German foreign minister bent on telling Shevardnadze anything he'd like hearing that would finally secure E. Germany painlessly from the Soviets?

He couldn't speak for NATO. Genscher held no such mandate. Genscher may have counted upon Shevardnadze hearing what he wished to hear but there was nothing formalizing such.

Further, not likely NATO endorses any membership policy failing to recognize self-determination as a key tenet. Very likely, however, a W. German foreign minister would say anything to assuage the Soviets WRT E. Germany.

How about SECSTATE Baker then?

From NATO's Eastward Expansion: Calming Russian Fears - SPIEGEL ONLINE

What the US secretary of state said on Feb. 9, 1990 in the magnificent St. Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin is beyond dispute. There would be, in Baker's words, "no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east," provided the Soviets agreed to the NATO membership of a unified Germany.

Or former British Prime Minister John Major and Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd?

From NATO enlargement: Assurances and misunderstandings | European Council on Foreign Relations

Soviet officials pricked up their ears. When Soviet Defence Minister Dmitri Yazov, asked the British prime minister in March 1991 about NATO’s plans in the region, John Major replied that he “did not himself foresee circumstances now or in the future where East European countries would become members of NATO”. Douglas Hurd, the British foreign secretary, told Soviet Foreign Minister Aleksandr Bessmertnykh on 26 March 1991 that “there are no plans in NATO to include the countries of Eastern and Central Europe in NATO in one form or another”.[1]

[snapper]

Of course the matter can be argued about but Gorbachev, then 'Secretary General' or whatever said "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." (http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-fr...orbachev-pifer)

[Officer of Engineers]

Changes nothing about British and German statements concerning non-expansions into Eastern Europe.

As for Gorby, there's a reason why the Russians hate him.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ory-grievances

In April 2009, Mikhail Gorbachev expressed his outrage at the way Russia had been hoodwinked by the west in the years following German unification in 1990. After all, he told the German tabloid Bild, the western powers had pledged that “Nato would not move a centimetre to the east”. The failure to honour this commitment had poisoned Russia’s post-cold war relations with the west. “They probably rubbed their hands, rejoicing at having played a trick on the Russians,” he said.

[snapper]

Neither the British nor German conversations can or should be regarded as 'binding' especially since the current aggressor regards none of their previous and freely entered into LEGAL commitments as binding on them. Sure Gorbachev may be "unpopular" in Muscovy but not sure what that has to do with international laws, treaties etc... and if you do not seek to uphold international law you appease any and all would be aggressors. These conversations were 'talk' not Charters, Treaties or even Memorandums - all of which the aggressor has broken.

[citanon]

The right of a voting member of NATO and as one of the three major force contributors to Fulda Gap fight.

How about SECSTATE Baker then?



Or former British Prime Minister John Major and Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd?

But sir, these "promises" were said to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.

Further more, neither said for how long.

[Officer of Engineers]

Neither the British nor German conversations can or should be regarded as 'binding'

Of course it wasn't binding, the lawyers didn't hammer it into a treaty. But that goes against your point that your government did not give the Russians those impressions.

especially since the current aggressor regards none of their previous and freely entered into LEGAL commitments as binding on them. Sure Gorbachev may be "unpopular" in Muscovy but not sure what that has to do with international laws, treaties etc... and if you do not seek to uphold international law you appease any and all would be aggressors. These conversations were 'talk' not Charters, Treaties or even Memorandums - all of which the aggressor has broken.

Neither here nor there. First never mind what the Russians did or didn't do. This is about us.

The point was that we did try as hell not to admit these countries, offering them instead Partnership for Peace programs. It was they who petitioned us and they who jumped through hoops to meet our standards and even then, we tried to minimize the damage putting into a 1997 document that limits permanent forces (notice we now have rotational and not permanent battalions and battalions, not even a friggin brigade) and no nuclear forces. We also tried to bribe Moscow with G7 membership and IMF status in order to soften the blow.

Hell, there was even a suggestion of Russia joining NATO.

But again neither here nor there. The Baltics joined at a point when Russia was too weak to do anything about it and we've ignored Russian (and Ukrainian) anger about NATO expansion. When they joined, there was no threat from Russia and we were trying to buy them off from ever being a threat. Well, they've now become a threat and the Baltics are a military liability.

But sir, these "promises" were said to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore.

Further more, neither said for how long.

I'm stating the history. Nothing more. I don't care how those countries became NATO members but they are NATO members and we are required to defend them. To say the Ukraines should be more important is a load of horse puckey.

[S2]

"...John Major replied that he 'did not himself foresee circumstances now or in the future where East European countries would become members of NATO'”.

What Major would foresee and what transpired clearly differ. How so if this decision had been codified in some manner? ANY manner? It wasn't and that's also stating the more relevant history.

In truth, if petitioned by the Baltic states, it would be fair to suggest NATO didn't move east one inch. Those Baltic states and Poland, however, certainly moved west. Beside the point as the established facts now differ markedly from Russian revisionist history.

Colonel, you quoted Major and Baker to support Genscher's conversation with Shevardnadze. Why?

I know you understand no decision of this magnitude would be rendered by off-hand remarks made without a collective decision. These perspectives were never formalized so their comments bear no weight of law nor policy anymore than did Genscher's. For the same reason.

[Officer of Engineers]

Colonel, you quoted Major and Baker to support Genscher's conversation with Shevardnadze. Why?

To show the Russians have legitimate cause to mistrust NATO.

I know you understand no decision of this magnitude would be rendered by off-hand remarks made without a collective decision. These perspectives were never formalized so their comments bear no weight of law nor policy anymore than did Genscher's. For the same reason.

The decision was made without taking Moscow's concerns and abilities in the process. Moscow was screaming bloody murder when the decision was made and we tried to buy them off with more promises (1997 Founding Act) and then proceeded to do the Kosovo War a year later.

Everybody thought that Russia would stayed weak. Hurd gave a fuck you speech to Moscow when Poland came in and he was the one who assured Moscow that NATO has no intentions of expanding. The were bought off with money (G7 and IMF) because they damned needed it.

Sarah was trying like hell to say that the Ukraines deserved NATO protection more than the Baltics. The thing is that we never took Baltics military liabilities into consideration when they were admitted but we certainly did for the Ukraines and Georgia. France and Germany said no to Georgian and Ukrainian NATO membership in 2008.

[Mihais]

Thus,France and Germany enjoy so little trust in the East.