Russia claims new tank invisible to radar/IR

[Tom24]

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?

Offhand comments made during informal discussions by individuals not representing the whole are not legal treaties, and amounts to grasping at straws by the Russians to claim that promises were broken. If we're going to discuss promises that were broken, how about the Budapest Memorandum 1994? The Russians have never been trustworthy thus the reason for so many former Soviet republics desperately seeking NATO membership. Putin's mindset is KGB to the core. I don't understand why Putin isn't called out publicly more often over the Budapest Memorandum. It's almost like western leaders have forgotten it exists at all. I've only heard western leaders reference it a couple of times during the last 2 1/2 years. Also I'm wondering who the "Ukraines" are? You keep calling Ukrainians "Ukraines", is that a pejorative way to refer to Ukrainians? My wife is Ukrainian American with some family living near Moscow, I've been to Ukraine 5 times and Russia twice and I've never heard anyone in either country or anywhere else refer to Ukrainians as "Ukraines".

[S2]

"To show the Russians have legitimate cause to mistrust NATO"

Nonsense. The Russians possessed legitimate evidence to mistrust Major, Genscher and Baker-all of whom spoke out-of-turn and without the authority to do so definitively. That's been clearly established as no treaty was ever "...hammered out..." by the diplomats. That's what diplomats do and it wasn't never, ever done.

The tangible absence of any formalized treaty matters FAR more than the off-hand remarks by Genscher, Major and Baker.

It's. That. Simple.

The Russians have no factual basis for feeling threatened by NATO. That the Warsaw Pact ran wholesale AWAY from Russia should give them pause, however, to consider fearing themselves.

[Officer of Engineers]

Offhand comments made during informal discussions by individuals not representing the whole are not legal treaties, and amounts to grasping at straws by the Russians to claim that promises were broken.

If that was the case, we wouldn't have any ceasefires at all during all the peacekeeping missions.

The reality is that Gentlemen's Agreements are a common practice. Nixon's comments to Brezhnev that the US will oppose a Soviet nuclear strike on China tantamount to putting China under the US nuclear umbrella. We've also have India's pledge to have no plans to test a nuclear device for receiving a NSG exemption.

They are the ways we get things done fast and hard without going through all the lawyer crap. The Somali naval patrols comes to mind. The USN took overall command but at times gave command to Chinese and Indian ships.

Baker, Major, and Genscher were right that there was no plans to move east but plans changed. NATO was going to suck into the East one way or the other. The Soviets left a power vacuum and either NATO moves east to fill the power vacum or be forced into peacekeeping the region.

If we're going to discuss promises that were broken, how about the Budapest Memorandum 1994?

The loophole is the Crimean Referendum. They can lawyer their way out of a treaty just as good as we can.

The Russians have never been trustworthy

SALT and START

thus the reason for so many former Soviet republics desperately seeking NATO membership.

The Ukraines actually refused NATO membership.

Putin's mindset is KGB to the core. I don't understand why Putin isn't called out publicly more often over the Budapest Memorandum. It's almost like western leaders have forgotten it exists at all. I've only heard western leaders reference it a couple of times during the last 2 1/2 years.

Mainly because the Ukraines ain't worth starting WWIII over.

Also I'm wondering who the "Ukraines" are? You keep calling Ukrainians "Ukraines",

I'm calling the country, the Ukraines. I call Ukrainians, Ukrainians. Can't remember when and how I started but it was over 50 years ago.

[Officer of Engineers]

"To show the Russians have legitimate cause to mistrust NATO"

Nonsense. The Russians possessed legitimate evidence to mistrust Major, Genscher and Baker-all of whom spoke out-of-turn and without the authority to do so definitively. That's been clearly established as no treaty was ever "...hammered out..." by the diplomats. That's what diplomats do and it wasn't never, ever done.

Now, this is reaching. Of course they had the authority. National representatives in their capacity as national representatives in talks with their Soviet counterparts do not represent their nation's views and positions? Not going to fly.

It's. That. Simple.

It. Is. That. Simple. Those men represented their countries in their capacity as authorized by their governments. You don't get to choose what you say is your view and what is your government's view.

The Russians have no factual basis for feeling threatened by NATO. That the Warsaw Pact ran wholesale AWAY from Russia should give them pause, however, to consider fearing themselves.

What those men said was true. There were NO PLANS to move East in 91/92 and we tried as hell not to accept new members. That was why we came up with Partnership for Peace. PfP supposed to give these countries all the benefits of an alliance without actually becoming members.

We know why the Warsaw Pact ran away. But no one understood why we moved east. To keep the East Europeans in Eastern Europe. The collapse of the USSR left a power vacum to be filled. NATO was going east whether we liked it or not - either by accepting new stable members or for peacekeeping/policing.

And no one thought about Moscow's reaction mainly because a drunk was in charge then.

[Tom24]

It's just "Ukraine", not "The Ukraine", or "The Ukraines". Just sayin'. It seems like your also grasping at straws trying to claim that a couple of informal conversations between individuals without the authority or mandate to speak for the whole constitutes a treaty or binding promise. The Budapest Memorandum was a negotiated and signed agreement, but was intentionally vague on how to enforce Russia adhering to it, but the Russians agreed to and signed it. I guess Ukraine should have held onto it's nukes, I'm betting at this point the Baltics also wish that they had. At the very least it would have forced Russia to have a moment of pause before considering "invading" it's neighbors territoy. The referendum in Crimea was a farce. While I don't doubt the majority of Crimeans probably voted for joining Russia it was probably nowhere close to the "claimed" 96-97% result. Remaining with Ukraine wasn't even one of the choices on the referendum where my wife's family and friends live. Taters were kept from voting at all. The choices were join Russia or independence. Because of those choices my wife's friends and relatives in Simferopol and Yalta refused to vote, as did many others. We know some ethnic Russians that wanted to remain with Ukraine. Cossacks in camo standing outside and inside polling centers to ensure positive votes was another problem. It was rigged to achieve the predetermined result. Any referendum held only AFTER the deployment of invading troops from the Sevastopol base is illegitimate anyway. I surely hope that Russia isn't let off the hook from sanctions any time in the near future. I was just in Ukraine in March and visited Mariupol. Crimea is still occupied and Russian military are still in the east. Back to the original topic, I'm skeptical that the T-14 Armata will be a successful tank, I'm betting it ends up not being produced in enough numbers to make a difference. I doubt the the Russians at this point can make the fully automatic turret reliable enough. I'm U.S. Coast Guard now but I have prior service in the Army. JMO

[snapper]

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

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was signed by Yeltsin as 'President of the Russian Federation'. This actually matters because the same 'assurances' that were made regarding Ukrainian territorial sovereignty were also made regarding both Belarus and Kazakhstan.

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

Agreed, the point being that the west was in now way at any time legally bound.

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.

I merely questioned whether the 'greater asset' outeighed or was of lesser or equal value to 'jumping through hoops'. Clearly you are correct though in saying "we never took Baltics military liabilities into consideration when they were admitted"... nothing was 'thought through'. Forget the Fulda Gap; that's history, what about the Suwałki Gap? An attack on Kalinin would constitute an attack of 'Sovereign Muscovite territory' and by their nuclear doctrine would thereby justify a nuclear response.

Also I'm wondering who the "Ukraines" are? You keep calling Ukrainians "Ukraines", is that a pejorative way to refer to Ukrainians?

I have tried explaining the semantics in Russian and English... "On Canada" implies non ownership - "on the equator" etc, 'The Ukraine' as opposed 'Ukraine' being comparable in English.

The reality is that Gentlemen's Agreements are a common practice.

Not all men are 'Gentlemen' nor all women 'Ladies' but if Gentlemens Agreements were all that were necessary why do we have Treaties etc...? The point is the former are not legally binding nor should be regarded as implying any obligation; it is the opinion of one person and while it may signify some degree of 'intent' until some Treaty or other international agreement is signed it remains the diplomatic equivalent of 'hearsay'. The Canadian free trade agreement with Ukraine which has been discussed for the last year was signed today; see the difference?

[Officer of Engineers]

It's just "Ukraine", not "The Ukraine", or "The Ukraines". Just sayin'.

Too old to change for such a minor detail.

It seems like your also grasping at straws trying to claim that a couple of informal conversations between individuals without the authority or mandate to speak for the whole constitutes a treaty or binding promise.

A couple of informal conversations? These conversations happened within the context of the 2+4 Negotiations of unifying Germany (which is why I found it shocking a Foreign Service member don't know any of this). They were strongly put forth to ease Soviet fears. Germany wanted unification. France and the UK did not because they feared a 3rd World War against a now united Germany. The USSR demanded a united Germany out of NATO. The US puts the price of German unification as to stay in NATO so that the rest of Western Europe (and more in particular, the US) has a say on future German military expansion.

Moscow could have buggered the entire thing up by staying their armies in East Germany.

And British Prime Minister Major and German Chancellor Kohl were repeatly asked about NATO expansion with Major and Hurd giving their assurances one year after the Wall came down. British and French goals were to check any future German military adventures so staying in NATO was the price. The USSR, obviously, did not want to face a united Germany with NATO behind her.

Hell, Germany couldn't care less about NATO back then. Only a small minority supported NATO and if that was the price to be paid to get Soviet Armies out? Break out the beer.

It was within that context should those statements be viewed.

The Budapest Memorandum was a negotiated and signed agreement, but was intentionally vague on how to enforce Russia adhering to it, but the Russians agreed to and signed it.

The intent was to pay the Ukraines for her nukes. Kiev was and still is under the Russian nuclear umbrella.

I guess Ukraine should have held onto it's nukes, I'm betting at this point the Baltics also wish that they had. At the very least it would have forced Russia to have a moment of pause before considering "invading" it's neighbors territoy.

Only Moscow had the release codes and most nukes in Kiev's pocession were recessed; meaning they had to be readied before they could be used. With the state of the rest of the Ukrainian military posture, you can guess just how well maintained those nukes were. I guesstimate Kiev could probably put 10 together out of the 1000s that were in her pocession. The Baltics and Central Asia? Forget it.

The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances was signed by Yeltsin as 'President of the Russian Federation'. This actually matters because the same 'assurances' that were made regarding Ukrainian territorial sovereignty were also made regarding both Belarus and Kazakhstan.

The Russians have good lawyers too. Give their lawyers a week and they'll find a loophole.

The Americans did with Iraq.

Agreed, the point being that the west was in now way at any time legally bound.

A Gentlemen's Agreement by definition is not legal. It is an understanding that there would be no gentlmen behaviour if the agreement is breached.

I merely questioned whether the 'greater asset' outeighed or was of lesser or equal value to 'jumping through hoops'. Clearly you are correct though in saying "we never took Baltics military liabilities into consideration when they were admitted"... nothing was 'thought through'. Forget the Fulda Gap; that's history, what about the Suwałki Gap? An attack on Kalinin would constitute an attack of 'Sovereign Muscovite territory' and by their nuclear doctrine would thereby justify a nuclear response.

Clearly we're saying that we would start WWIII in defence of NATO members.

Not all men are 'Gentlemen' nor all women 'Ladies' but if Gentlemens Agreements were all that were necessary why do we have Treaties etc...? The point is the former are not legally binding nor should be regarded as implying any obligation; it is the opinion of one person and while it may signify some degree of 'intent' until some Treaty or other international agreement is signed it remains the diplomatic equivalent of 'hearsay'. The Canadian free trade agreement with Ukraine which has been discussed for the last year was signed today; see the difference?

Gentlemen Agreements are immediate and tempoary. Ceasefires. Truces. Casualty evacutions, etc. Treaties are longer term and requires lawyers, not soldiers.

[snapper]

Too old to change for such a minor detail.

A couple of informal conversations? These conversations happened within the context of the 2+4 Negotiations of unifying Germany (which is why I found it shocking a Foreign Service member don't know any of this). They were strongly put forth to ease Soviet fears. Germany wanted unification. France and the UK did not because they feared a 3rd World War against a now united Germany. The USSR demanded a united Germany out of NATO. The US puts the price of German unification as to stay in NATO so that the rest of Western Europe (and more in particular, the US) has a say on future German military expansion.

Moscow could have buggered the entire thing up by staying their armies in East Germany.

And British Prime Minister Major and German Chancellor Kohl were repeatly asked about NATO expansion with Major and Hurd giving their assurances one year after the Wall came down. British and French goals were to check any future German military adventures so staying in NATO was the price. The USSR, obviously, did not want to face a united Germany with NATO behind her.

From my understanding it was rather the Thatcher Government than the Major Government that had 'concerns' regarding German reunion. The French - I have been told - were rather more favourable.

The intent was to pay the Ukraines for her nukes. Kiev was and still is under the Russian nuclear umbrella.

I do not normally describe an umbrella as a threat. Presumably we could also describe Denmark - which the Putin regime recently threatened with nuclear weapons - or even the US as under the Muscovite nuclear umbrella? An umbrella is not usually used as a threat (Markov excluded etc).

[Doktor]

Denmark being a nuclear target is saying out loud what everyone knows. You host nukes, you become a target. Simple, no?

So what if the Russians took the gloves off, they are not known for subtilty.

[Officer of Engineers]

From my understanding it was rather the Thatcher Government than the Major Government that had 'concerns' regarding German reunion. The French - I have been told - were rather more favourable.

No one was going to stop the unification, not even the Soviet Army. The question was how much was it going to cost, even in blood. East Germany was on the verge of revolt within the Warsaw Pact.

The Brits and French were trying to ensure a safe future and that meant a united Germany in NATO which was an extremely hard sell to Moscow. They could have very well tried a Czechoslavika or a Hungary.

I do not normally describe an umbrella as a threat. Presumably we could also describe Denmark - which the Putin regime recently threatened with nuclear weapons - or even the US as under the Muscovite nuclear umbrella? An umbrella is not usually used as a threat (Markov excluded etc).

If China nukes Kiev, you want to know whose nuke would be flying towards Beijing?

[snapper]

No one was going to stop the unification, not even the Soviet Army. The question was how much was it going to cost, even in blood. East Germany was on the verge of revolt within the Warsaw Pact.

The Brits and French were trying to ensure a safe future and that meant a united Germany in NATO which was an extremely hard sell to Moscow. They could have very well tried a Czechoslavika or a Hungary.

To my understanding of the history (it is 'history' after all) it was actually Hungary that opened the borders first? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remova...e_with_Austria etc... Of course alot of this was on the back of the Solidarność/Solidarity Trade Union movement in Poland which lead to the semi free Polish elections of 1989. If the Poles are 'revolting' (and naturally some are in the other sense also), the Huns are opening the borders etc... the logistics of suppressing an East German insurrection become problematic no? The Huns opened the border (I think?) before the Polish election (August to September or something but the timeline between the two was short) but the fact that there was to be a semi free Polish election (where Solidarity won every freely electable seat) agree after the 'Round Table Talks' cannot have discouraged the Huns. From my understanding trying "Czechoslovakia or a Hungary" to get to Eastern Germany would possibly have required not only a Czechoslovakia and Hungary but also a Poland, Eastern Germany and maybe elsewhere too. A 'mass revolt' and the costs involved in essentially reconquering Central and Eastern Europe - even if there were no Western objection or support for the 'rebels' (which there certainly was in Poland to my knowledge) would have bankrupted the Soviet regime. Of course I cannot say if this an absolutely accurate assessment - you were probably there and may know better - but from what I have learned from archives and people that is the common view.

If China nukes Kiev, you want to know whose nuke would be flying towards Beijing?

I very much doubt that China has even considered such an idea given it's 'New Silk Road' plans which involve both Ukraine and Poland. I think we all know the single regime that may entertain such ideas.

[Officer of Engineers]

To my understanding of the history (it is 'history' after all) it was actually Hungary that opened the borders first? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remova...e_with_Austria etc... Of course alot of this was on the back of the Solidarność/Solidarity Trade Union movement in Poland which lead to the semi free Polish elections of 1989. If the Poles are 'revolting' (and naturally some are in the other sense also), the Huns are opening the borders etc... the logistics of suppressing an East German insurrection become problematic no? The Huns opened the border (I think?) before the Polish election (August to September or something but the timeline between the two was short) but the fact that there was to be a semi free Polish election (where Solidarity won every freely electable seat) agree after the 'Round Table Talks' cannot have discouraged the Huns. From my understanding trying "Czechoslovakia or a Hungary" to get to Eastern Germany would possibly have required not only a Czechoslovakia and Hungary but also a Poland, Eastern Germany and maybe elsewhere too. A 'mass revolt' and the costs involved in essentially reconquering Central and Eastern Europe - even if there were no Western objection or support for the 'rebels' (which there certainly was in Poland to my knowledge) would have bankrupted the Soviet regime. Of course I cannot say if this an absolutely accurate assessment - you were probably there and may know better - but from what I have learned from archives and people that is the common view.

You're getting sidetracked with other issues. A unified Germany outside of NATO was out of the question. The US, the UK, and France would not allow it. Germany, the UK, France, and the US had to, therefore, convinced the USSR that they had no plans to expand NATO membership outside of incoroporating East Germany. According to the Soviet side, they did so extremely well.

I very much doubt that China has even considered such an idea given it's 'New Silk Road' plans which involve both Ukraine and Poland. I think we all know the single regime that may entertain such ideas.

A nuclear umbrella means who would be retalliating for you if you get nuked. If the Chinese nukes Kiev, it would be a Russian nuke flying towards China.

[snapper]

You're getting sidetracked with other issues. A unified Germany outside of NATO was out of the question. The US, the UK, and France would not allow it. Germany, the UK, France, and the US had to, therefore, convinced the USSR that they had no plans to expand NATO membership outside of incoroporating East Germany. According to the Soviet side, they did so extremely well.

I agree - partly; the re-united Germany had to be kept on 'our side'. Still does of course... as I have argued regarding the whole Brexit shambles. I do not think you can altogether discount the effect of events in Poland and Hungary - nor the Soviet financial problems etc in any full account of that history. Nor, I would stress, do agreements regarding German re-unification (even the 'Gentleman's agreements' you refer to) as in any way related to Poland or Romania etc...

A nuclear umbrella means who would be retalliating for you if you get nuked. If the Chinese nukes Kiev, it would be a Russian nuke flying towards China.

I must question that... more likely to invade under some humanitarian/restoring order guise imv.

[Officer of Engineers]

I agree - partly; the re-united Germany had to be kept on 'our side'. Still does of course... as I have argued regarding the whole Brexit shambles. I do not think you can altogether discount the effect of events in Poland and Hungary - nor the Soviet financial problems etc in any full account of that history. Nor, I would stress, do agreements regarding German re-unification (even the 'Gentleman's agreements' you refer to) as in any way related to Poland or Romania etc...

Oh for Pete sakes. You were in the Foreign Service. Look at the freaking the timeline when these promises were made. The Soviet Army was still the most poweful military force in Eastern Europe. The Warsaw Pact was looming large. Poland, Romainia, et al's only protection against now a united Germany was the USSR. A Germany who just inherited the 2nd most powerful military force in the Warsaw Pact and a member of the most powerful military alliance in history.

The USSR was still going strong, at least by all outward appearance, and had just made peace with China. They unsaddled themselves from Afghanistan and instead of falling, Kabul was actually winning the war.

Did anyone at the time thought the USSR would fall and that Poland would actually want to ally with Germany? Did Moscow actually need a written treaty from NATO that it would not accept current Warsaw Pact members? By default, Poland could not join NATO if she was Warsaw Pact.

Hell, no one was even questioning about leaving the Warsaw Pact ... Not until the Soviets tried and failed at their coup.

Yeah, I went through all of that but these are not even foreign service archives but open source history.

I must question that... more likely to invade under some humanitarian/restoring order guise imv.

It's a freaking point of not using nukes. Kiev gets nuked, Moscow retalliates. It's a point NOT to use nukes.

[snapper]

The Soviet Army was still the most poweful military force in Eastern Europe. The Warsaw Pact was looming large. Poland, Romainia, et al's only protection against now a united Germany was the USSR.

True but consecutive 'rebellions' and the fall in oil prices (Kremlin income) should still be considered as at least contributory imv.

A Germany who just inherited the 2nd most powerful military force in the Warsaw Pact and a member of the most powerful military alliance in history.

East German*... but they internally collapsed. Why was that? I recall reading about different orders sent out regarding the Berlin Wall 'opening'... clearly was some disorganisation to say the least. Some evidently wished to re-open the crossings.

Did anyone at the time thought the USSR would fall and that Poland would actually want to ally with Germany? Did Moscow actually need a written treaty from NATO that it would not accept current Warsaw Pact members? By default, Poland could not join NATO if she was Warsaw Pact.

Why was Polish Solidarity funded? Apart from the Pope at the time.

Hell, no one was even questioning about leaving the Warsaw Pact ... Not until the Soviets tried and failed at their coup.

I think this is simply wrong; Poles having elections, Huns opening their borders etc all prior to coup attempt, though admittedly the Berlin wall fell later but the point is how to get through to East Germany when the Poles and Huns etc are in fairly obvious open rebellion and you are just about bankrupt?

It's a freaking point of not using nukes. Kiev gets nuked, Moscow retalliates. It's a point NOT to use nukes.

Moscow would not retaliate against China if they attacked Kyiv, period. The Chinese are keeping the Putin regime in spending money - buying oil fields on the cheap etc... Without the Chinese Putin is isolated, totally.