Is there a signed treaty? No. But the US SoS (James A. Baker III) and the German Foreign Minister (Hans-Dietrich Genscher) are on the record in 1990

Genscher is on video tape stating very clearly: "Wir waren uns einig, dass nicht die Absicht besteht das NATO-Verteidigungsgebiet auszudehnen nach Osten. Das gilt übrigens nicht nur im Bezug auf die DDR, die wir da nicht einverlaiben wollen, sondern das gilt ganz generell."

In English: we are in agreement that there is no intention of expanding the NATO security zone eastwards. This applies not only to the GDR, which we do not intend to incorporate, but in general."

Or how about Baker's words, Feb. 9, 1990, St. Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin:
"If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the East."

And the minutes show Gorbachev as having said:
"Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable."

To which Baker replied:
"I agree."

Again, no treaties, nothing. But some people, myself included, make the argument that unequivocal statements of a nation's highest-ranking diplomat are to be taken seriously, unless overruled by explicit, written agreements.

And from what we've heard from Gorbachev over the years, he took them for their words.

Admittedly, having been replaced by Yelzin who received massive "help" from the US might have made Gorbachev a little grumpy.

What remains at the end is this: NATO was created as a defensive alliance against the Soviets and wasn't dissolved when the Soviet Union collapsed. The highest-ranking diplomats of the primary players at that time (US, FRG) are on the record with promises that NATO wouldn't expand eastwards after the German reunification. Now NATO is closer to Russia's border than ever and the Ukraine had a democratically elected government (they were thugs, but elected) overthrown by forces that had massive support from the US. As a result, fascist militias wearing SS insignia are roaming free in Novorossiya, with government support.

If I were Russia, I'd be pissed.

But I'm in Germany, so now I have a strongman in charge of Russia, a thug who has journalists and opposition in general killed, on the one side, and the Americans who installed a Nazi-sympathising regime in Ukraine on the other.

What's not to like about it.

So when the US establishment then goes on a full-blown bender to position Russia as a scapegoat for now having to live with President Trump, they are playing with fire just to distract from their fucked-up domestic policies.

And we're not even touching on the hypocrisy of the US being outraged when some foreign nation meddles in their internal affairs. Of course Russia tries to influence US politics in their favor. Guess what, so does the UK, France, Germany, NZ, China, Japan, even bloody Luxembourg for all I know. Just like the US exerts influence on German politics (ie German Marshall Fund, Atlantikbrücke, etc), and on politics of every other nation of significance.

No prob, I was just wondering.
Oh...I'm sorry you took it that way. I gave her a pass on this story alone, and only on the specific detail that she didn't say what the commentator claimed she did, but she did IMPLY what he said, and to those that don't listen closely, that's likely what they heard. I did not "buy it", I do hear what she came close to saying, and I call her out for being completely biased in her assessments and implications about what this means. You are correct, however, that while I APEAR to give her a pass for qualifying, I would likely not give those on the right the same....but that's only an appearance. Her IMPLICATION that this would "prove" they have something on Trump is just biased, conjecture, and wrong, and is a reason I don't watch her, even though I agree mostly with her takes on things.....mostly.
Kyle was lying when he reported what she said....and that's what I took issue with. I also took issue with his take on the issue that Russia militarizing it's borders isn't something to guard against...history proves him wrong.

The 'proof' of Russian involvement in the hacking is classified, you won't get to see it. That's an issue with Trump decrying the intelligence community (who didn't really get Iraq wrong, btw, they were clear in their uncertainty in their reports, but the administration erased any hint of uncertainty and claimed the redacted reports were fact publicly.)...but as a whole, I still have some trust in them...perhaps it's misplaced but I have a hard time believing so many intelligence organizations came to the same specific conclusions based on pure bias.

Um...Russia expanded into 2 countries recently, and are eyeing the other Slavic states. To me, that's a renewal of a hot war if we ever react like we're obligated to by treaty, until we do, it's a renewal of the cold war (and a violation of numerous treaties, including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances) ...one that the pentagon is probably quite happy about, granted.

Again, don't feel you have to defend your viewpoint from me, or your admiration for a reporter....but allow me to have my own viewpoint, and to state and explain it if I choose. I am also quite biased, but not to the point of exclusion of fact.


EDIT: As to the troop placement in the Eastern NATO countries, I would like to see minutes of the 1990 summit where this agreement/guarantee was either made or not, not just reports of what Putin says today VS what Gorbachev says today...I want to see what was ACTUALLY said in the meeting, and more important, what was SIGNED by the parties. That the Russians haven't produced a signed treaty guaranteeing NATO wouldn't deploy farther in the East EVER is a pretty good indicator to me that it was not agreed on, so claims about what may have been SAID during negotiations are moot and have no bearing at all on what was agreed on. It's possible there was that agreement, if they just point us to it, I'll be on their side on this topic (unless it included a clause like "unless Russia begins expansion back into it's now independent satellites")

I'm not at all sure if you're referring to me in your description.
I thought I explained well why a respected reporter working for a propaganda site is both making themselves suspect and lending veracity to the propaganda machine, and that you mostly agreed.
I also mentioned Maddow specifically as being willing to fudge the news for her bias....BUT it bears mention that here she did NOT say what the narrator said she said, she said "we are about to find out if Russia MAYBE has something on our president." That's arguing that, if Trump does what Russia wants, it MIGHT be because they blackmailed him into it...or might not. If he goes against Russia on something serious like securing our allies borders from an expansionist Russia that indicates they MIGHT not be blackmailing him. This guy totally exaggerated and misstated her statement to feign outrage, he's a complete bombastic liar....sorry @enoch. That's not to say she doesn't also exaggerate and omit.

As to the troops on the border, that's what Russia did, and claimed it was just defensive until after they took Crimea and part of Ukraine proper.
As to the treaty with Russia, we also have a treaty with the Ukraine (and so did Russia) that, in return for their nuclear disarmament, we would guarantee their borders and come to their aid militarily if anyone attacked them....and we completely failed to stand up when Russia invaded TWICE. Of course now our allies want our troops ON the border, if American troops aren't killed, we don't care if Russia invades them, and they want us to keep our word, so we need our troops in harm's way to force us to live up to our responsibilities since we've horrendously failed to do so incredibly recently and now look even less likely to oppose Russian expansion.

Do you get your info from, faux or Trump?
I'm...wow...where to start?
"Neo-liberals" are anti war, so positive peaceful relations are what they're after, not illegal collusion and absolute capitulation to our (and our allies') detriment. The 'neoliberals' didn't even use the military to protect the Ukraine, even though we are bound to do so by treaties.
War profiteering companies are almost 100% owned and run by neocons, not liberals.

There is proof, publicly released proof. There is not yet a completed report submitted to congress, those take time to put together, verify, edit, recertify, sign off, and submit. 17 intelligence agencies have publicly stated they have plenty of 'proof', some hackers have gone on record as working on this project for the Russians at their direction, the methods and programs used have easily identified 'fingerprints' from previous Russian hacks.

The contents of the emails were completely innocuous, with absolutely no smoking gun. If you think differently, I think you've been duped by the fake news industry.
'No one cares' about the RNC emails because the Russians didn't release them, they weren't trying to hurt Trump, he's their dream president, a moron under their thumb that doesn't understand the idea of diplomacy, much less how to practice it. (That no one cares is totally not true, btw, I care...I even care that they were hacked, but I care far more that they were protected and helped repeatedly by a foreign nation they invited to illegally become involved in our election with the clearly stated intention of skewing our election for their benefit).
Sweet zombie Jesus, if Clinton had won after asking a national enemy to illicitly and illegally help her like Trump did, the right would be inconsolable and frothing at the mouth calling for revolution and blood.

Yeah, its going to be bad. I am hoping though, that the way the goverment is set up, it will mitigate Trump's impact. Realistically, beyond fucking up treaties and foreign relations, the President doesn't have enough power to totally sink us. We've had some absolutely horrible ones in the past and managed so far, although Buchanan did sort of help set up the basis for the Civil War.

The problem is that sets up what reminds me of the 2000 election. It absolutely astounded me half the country thought George W. Bush was a valid candidate, let alone the better candidate than Al Gore, not that I liked Gore, but given the choice between the two, Gore had viable plans for the budget, a cohesive foreign policy, etc.

It shouldn't have been a close election, but not only was it razor close, Gore lost. Countless times there have been in world history leaders who came about who generally wouldn't and shouldn't have, but they did. All it takes is a bad recession or other event to tilt the odds in their favor at the right time. Hitler doesn't come to power without the Great Depression and the Treaty of Versailles leaving Germany dependent on US loans.

And to me, Trump is absolutely frightening. I honestly have absolutely no idea what he would do as President, and not in a good way. I quite honestly don't even know if he's actually in line with the Tea Party or not. It is terrifying to me that he's on a course where potentially a recession at the wrong time could make him president because so many voters are absolutely ignorant or stupid enough to support him.

Screw the entertainment value of it. I keep thinking back to the George W. Bush Iraqi occupation and the crapshow that was Katrina and realize people's lives are literally at stake by botching the selection of the next President, and when you make one option completely invalid before the election even starts, it doesn't help.

The formation of Israel and the question of stealing land can be debated, but at this point it is history and cannot be changed. At some point a nation needed to arise out of the ashes of the Ottoman empire. The problem was, when one did it didn't encompass the entire area. Arab Palestinians didn't vote to accept the border, but neither did they declare war on Israel in 1948, how could they if they weren't even a state? The root of today's problems have to do with the taking of land by act of war. Palestinians are punished for the acts of the other arab nations.

I found it highly surprising the video didn't mention the countless UN resolutions condemning Israel's acts of land confiscation, usually with the USA and Israel the only ones opposing it. In war you can defend yourself, even invade the enemy's territory. But when it's over you have to go back your home, you can't keep a permanent army presence on the captured land and slowly allow your citizens to start living in the captured territory. The fact that the land wasn't part of Jordan made it easier for people to give Israel a pass since they weren't stealing land from a nation, just a nation-less people. That doesn't make it any more justifiable. Israel should have occupied the territory until the end of hostilities and then completely withdrawn.

The video mentions the land they grabbed from Egypt, the almost empty Sinai peninsula that was an incredible strategic value. They were plenty happy to hand it back for a peace treaty, mainly because the hardcore Zionists weren't determined to expand the state of Israel there as they are in the west bank, which has much more history for their people. Notice how they went out of their way to establish a salient to Jerusalem during the 1948 war.

The only reason at some point in the last 40 years Israel hasn't just put up a fence and closed the border permanently(surely the safest choice if you're really worried about suicide bombers) is they wouldn't be able to move beyond that border and capture more land, which is what the orthodox Jews demand. People living in the west bank live under different laws based on their religion. Israeli civil code if they're settlers, military rule if they're Palestinians. How ironic that Israel is lauded as the great democracy in the middle east, yet deny the right of representation to millions under their control.

The Indian argument is (kind of) stupid. Yes, we signed a peace treaty with them that should have held. But prior to that we won a war. That shit makes it our land--unfortunately. This has been the case throughout history.

I noticed it on another video and find it silly...but meh, the other guy thought it was fitting...

With that said they are terrorists, the federal government has the rights to that land and the only reason we haven't killed them all is that they are not Muslims or black.

Sorry, Ms Constitutional lawyer...the supreme court disagreed with you long ago on almost every point.

AND...if the fed can't actually own the land as she claims, then they couldn't possibly legally have GIVEN that land to the ranchers, could they? The land would be the property of the people the fed took it from, namely the native Paiute in this case. The fed broke treaties, and illegally used the military to remove the owners, then gave it to settlers. Somehow I doubt they care about THAT overreach of the Fed, though, because that doesn't help them steal land for themselves.
So, if the Fed owning and managing land were unconstitutional, it would legally go back to the natives. Period. I think if that was pointed out clearly to these idiots, they would suddenly find the Fed's ownership of land legal, because otherwise the land they own today (not just the federal land) is the forcefully stolen property of the natives, and these people would have to leave their ranches and go back to England (or wherever their ancestors came from).

Federal law IS above the states law, so in the way she's mentioning, the federal government IS above the state.

It's so sad that her interpretation of the Constitution is so incredibly different from the well defined, legally codified interpretations made by the only group that is empowered to make final interpretations, the supreme court, but she somehow doesn't understand that her self serving interpretation doesn't trump theirs. If she's really a lawyer, how did she ever pass the bar with such a poor grasp of the law and how it works?
*lies

What? How could anyone seriously propose Obama stop NATO help for Ukraine linked to removing Assad from Syria? What good would that do to anyone but Putin?

Obama does not decide what NATO does and where.

Ukraine will fall to Putin without west European help.

Syria is a tribal and religious mess where no one has anything to gain right now, Assad is hated but legitimate. Rebels are split into factions with unclear objectives. Who exactly would the USA support in Syria if Assad was somehow "removed" by the Russians?

No one wants to fight the IS; Syria wants to fight rebels, Turkey wants to fight Kurds, Iran wants to fight Iraq, everyone wants to fight Israel. OK Kurds want to fight the IS but Kurds dont get much love on this planet. Even Kurds and Assad and Russian air support are unlikely to be enough to fight the IS.

Russia "good cop" in Ukraine... excuse me? You lost me there...

PS: Obama may just have to rethink his position on Assad, everything else is just a standoff hoping to force Putin to respect international treaties that he has agreed to. Which is unlikely. The only possible way out is for Putin to succumb to internal Russian problems over time.

To think that the USA has for once not used proxies to deliver weapons, is, to put it mildly, insane. They had training camps since the beginning in Jordan. Same as the UK and France. There were huge old stockpiles of weapons in the Balkan for example. They somehow found their way to Syria into FSA hands, even though Saudis, Qataris, and Turkish mainly supported Al Nusra and IS. TOWs found their way to those extremists. Actually the USA sent those officially.

Of course Russia has its own interests there, but its not destabilization. That alone is reason enough to support them instead of the USA and their lackeys and boot lickers.

It has never been proven that Assad used chemical weapons. The investigators couldnt even find good indications for it. But that the extremists used chemical weapons in other cases was later confirmed. Funnily there wasnt such a huge fuss about it. Hmmm... wonder why.
The extremists also made it clear from the beginning that they dont want a successor from the current leader. They want power. They want a Sunni regime.

You then saying the ABM shield is only directed at Iran is ridiculous to say the least. MAD has its reason and saved us from otherwise certain global nuclear war quite a few times in the past. A shield like that can circumvent MAD, which is a wet dream of the neocons, always has been. Thats why the USA left the ABM treaty, NOT Russia.

Sad to see you didnt read the link (or ignored it) I linked you before. Instead you keep spewing out lies.

I don't think they have much choice really, they can either offer debt repayment extensions as a favour to the Greeks, or they can have a default from Greeks who can't make repayments... the only difference is the amount of good or ill will involved, and possibly penalty payments.

The treaties don't currently allow for a country to be ejected from the Eurozone, so I don't see what they could do if Greece simply refuses to make payments until they have the money. The trick would be to wait until the banks are on a more stable footing before starting that tactic.

Keynes and others made the same argument against the Treaty of Versailles. You mentioned how that turned out.

Folks did in fact learn from that mistake, but after everything is said and done, it was the Soviet expansion that made the case. Germany was the frontier and to turn it into some shithole or even a failed state would have made it worthless in the struggle against Soviet expansion. Germany was expected to a) keep them in check, and b) serve as a prime example of how much better life is within the realm of capitalism. If it hadn't been for T-34s in Berlin, I'm not entirely sure we would have been treated as favourably as we were.

In any case, even after much of the debt was written off, the remaining payments were stretched out over decades, so as to not be too much of a drain on the economic development of the country.

Still, it's not the same with Greece. We only torched half the continent, but they dodged their taxes. That's a million times worse, it seems.

While we're on the subject of tax evasion: Luxembourg alone accounts for about €20b-€30b a year of lost tax revenue in Germany. Yap, the tax system implemented by none other than troika member Jean-Claude Juncker is more of a drain on the public budget in Germany than Greece could ever be.

Beats me.

Organized mass movement, probably. You're not just dealing with an elite who has very little interest in such things, but also a public who has been, for a lack of a better word, conditioned to be suspicious of everything that breaks with existing structures. Given how many people dislike their jobs, you can't even blame them for assuming that no work will get done if there's an alternative in the form of an UBI. International treaties and trade deals are just the icing on top.

But again, who knows. I sure as hell don't. Been proven wrong too many times to have any claims to wisdom.