Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Sweden is now the 32nd member of NATO


susieice

Recommended Posts

I heard this on the BBC tonight. Good for them. Who on Earth would want to accept the brotherly love of Russia, as we have seen it extended to Ukraine?

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Velkommen i klubben, Sverige!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget to pay your dues or trump will be mean to you 🤪

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Is it true that NATO promised Russia it would not expand as part of the agreement during the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Nations who joined NATO after the agreement. 

Poland

1999
Poland
Hungary
1999
Hungary
 
Czechia
1999
Czechia
 
Romania
2004
Romania
 
Slovakia
2004
Slovakia
 
Slovenia
2004
Slovenia
 
Bulgaria
2004
Bulgaria
 
Latvia
2004
Latvia
 
Lithuania
2004
Lithuania
 
Estonia
2004
Estonia
 
Albania
2009
Albania
 
Croatia
2009
Croatia
 
Montenegro
2017
Montenegro
 
North Macedonia
2020
North Macedonia
 
Finland
2023
Finland
 
Sweden
2024
Sweden
 
Russia asks NATO
"Is this a joke or what?"
 
 
...is Ukraine the final nail?
 
 
Edited by TigerBright19
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

Is it true that NATO promised Russia it would not expand as part of the agreement during the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Nations who joined NATO after the agreement. 

Poland

1999
Poland
Hungary
1999
Hungary
 
Czechia
1999
Czechia
 
Romania
2004
Romania
 
Slovakia
2004
Slovakia
 
Slovenia
2004
Slovenia
 
Bulgaria
2004
Bulgaria
 
Latvia
2004
Latvia
 
Lithuania
2004
Lithuania
 
Estonia
2004
Estonia
 
Albania
2009
Albania
 
Croatia
2009
Croatia
 
Montenegro
2017
Montenegro
 
North Macedonia
2020
North Macedonia
 
Finland
2023
Finland
 
Sweden
2024
Sweden
 
Russia asks NATO
"Is this a joke or what?"
 
 
...is Ukraine the final nail?
 
 

Russia broke that agreement with the invasion, I think?

(I'm not good on these topics)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outstanding!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

Is it true that NATO promised Russia it would not expand as part of the agreement during the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Nations who joined NATO after the agreement. 

Poland

1999
Poland
Hungary
1999
Hungary
 
Czechia
1999
Czechia
 
Romania
2004
Romania
 
Slovakia
2004
Slovakia
 
Slovenia
2004
Slovenia
 
Bulgaria
2004
Bulgaria
 
Latvia
2004
Latvia
 
Lithuania
2004
Lithuania
 
Estonia
2004
Estonia
 
Albania
2009
Albania
 
Croatia
2009
Croatia
 
Montenegro
2017
Montenegro
 
North Macedonia
2020
North Macedonia
 
Finland
2023
Finland
 
Sweden
2024
Sweden
 
Russia asks NATO
"Is this a joke or what?"
 
 
...is Ukraine the final nail?
 
 

Well, I did find this:

“I was in those meetings, and Gorbachev has [also] said there was no promise not to enlarge NATO,” Zoellick recalls. Soviet Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, later president of Georgia, concurred, he says. Nor does the treaty on Germany’s unification include a limit on NATO enlargement. Those facts have undermined one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s justifications for invading Ukraine — that the United States had agreed that former Warsaw Pact nations would never become part of the North Atlantic security alliance.

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, pallidin said:

Well, I did find this:

“I was in those meetings, and Gorbachev has [also] said there was no promise not to enlarge NATO,” Zoellick recalls. Soviet Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, later president of Georgia, concurred, he says. Nor does the treaty on Germany’s unification include a limit on NATO enlargement. Those facts have undermined one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s justifications for invading Ukraine — that the United States had agreed that former Warsaw Pact nations would never become part of the North Atlantic security alliance.

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/

Thanks, although anyone really could conveniently forget the details of a meeting if the price were right.  They just need to look up the minutes of their meeting to fact check what was said, unless it was a private meeting with various shady deals being made on both sides of the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, pallidin said:

Well, I did find this:

“I was in those meetings, and Gorbachev has [also] said there was no promise not to enlarge NATO,” Zoellick recalls. Soviet Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, later president of Georgia, concurred, he says. Nor does the treaty on Germany’s unification include a limit on NATO enlargement. Those facts have undermined one of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s justifications for invading Ukraine — that the United States had agreed that former Warsaw Pact nations would never become part of the North Atlantic security alliance.

https://hls.harvard.edu/today/there-was-no-promise-not-to-enlarge-nato/

Putin lied and @TigerBright19 blindly parroted those lies as fact then tried to justify them when proven wrong?

Surely not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, Setton said:

Putin lied and @TigerBright19 blindly parroted those lies as fact then tried to justify them when proven wrong?

Surely not!

I don't know how you got that idea.  I simply stated that if the minutes of a meeting are not made public, then how can the truth be verified?  I don't believe anything politicians say without documentation  e.g. I occasionally visit the political records office at the Houses of Parliament in London to research old parliamentary debates, but when I searched for documents regarding NATO expansion between 1988 and 2000 I was told the documents were still classified.  Some of the documents would be available until 2026 and the others stated the following:

 

  • This record is closed as it may contain information which is closed under the Data Protection Act. If you wish to consult this record please submit a Freedom of Information request.
  • Closed Until: 31/01/2101

It reminds me of a sketch from 'Yes, Prime Minister' when they did not want to release embarrassing documents, and their excuse was that it contained security information that needed higher clearance, and documents that were lost in flood, fire, or misfiled, and the only thing left was a typed one page summary.

It is hard to trust a system that is not exactly trustworthy.  None of them are.

 

Edited by TigerBright19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

I don't know how you got that idea.  I simply stated that if the minutes of a meeting are not made public, then how can the truth be verified?  I don't believe anything politicians say without documentation  e.g. I occasionally visit the political records office at the Houses of Parliament in London to research old parliamentary debates, but when I searched for documents regarding NATO expansion between 1988 and 2000 I was told the documents were still classified.  Some of the documents would be available until 2026 and the others stated the following:

 

  • This record is closed as it may contain information which is closed under the Data Protection Act. If you wish to consult this record please submit a Freedom of Information request.
  • Closed Until: 31/01/2101

It reminds me of a sketch from 'Yes, Prime Minister' when they did not want to release embarrassing documents, and their excuse was that it contained security information that needed higher clearance, and documents that were lost in flood, fire, or misfiled, and the only thing left was a typed one page summary.

It is hard to trust a system that is not exactly trustworthy.  None of them are.

You think the government not wanting to share national security secrets with random members of the public makes it untrustworthy? 😄

Yet if Putin says NATO promised not to expand, that's fact until proven otherwise.

Gosh, I wonder why you don't get to see classified files...

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Setton said:

You think the government not wanting to share national security secrets with random members of the public makes it untrustworthy? 😄

Yet if Putin says NATO promised not to expand, that's fact until proven otherwise.

Gosh, I wonder why you don't get to see classified files...

But, why would it need to be a security secret?  Putin made a claim and we potentially could have the proof on record which debunks his claim, but we instead keep the evidence classified, so we have no option but to blindly and patriotically  trust that no such proposal was ever made to the Kremlin and that he is a liar.  It just seems fishy, especially with the public being conned into war with Iraq.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TigerBright19 said:

But, why would it need to be a security secret?  Putin made a claim and we potentially could have the proof on record which debunks his claim, but we instead keep the evidence classified, so we have no option but to blindly and patriotically  trust that no such proposal was ever made to the Kremlin and that he is a liar.  It just seems fishy, especially with the public being conned into war with Iraq.

 

Except other witnesses in the room have also said no such promises were made. 

And all classified files are kept sealed, typically for 50 years minimum.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only reason there are more members of NATO now is Vladimir Putin.  

Were Russia more friendly towards its neighbours, its neighbours would not have needed to seek protection. 

Simples. 

Vladimir Putin.   Either he wants NATO to expand more and more and more.  Or he's a complete dumbass no-nothing nobody nitwit.    Which is it?  :unsure2:

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Setton said:

Except other witnesses in the room have also said no such promises were made. 

However it has to be in context.   For instance which exact meeting was Putin referring to?  If he did not state which, then he would need to be asked so that the minutes can be obtained for verification of his claim.  Then again he may have been referring to a telephone call, in which case the transcript would need to be obtained from both sides for comparison.  Then again it could have been a letter sent by an official representing a higher authority who did not have permission to give such reassurances to the Kremlin and his blunder was hushed up, or it could have been a breakdown in communication with a document being incorrectly translated by an interpreter, or intercepted by a third party who fabricated evidence. 

Maybe even a disgruntled employee who led people down the wrong path because the cold war was ending and many agents were losing their jobs.  The possibilities a numerous. 

Without knowing exactly what Putin was referring to in detail, we only have officials giving their recollections to a meeting which may or may not even be related to what Putin was referring to.  We are just members of the public with a curious desire to know the truth.  If neither side can be trusted, then there should be an independent party with no affiliation who can mediate both sides.

I think many wars could have been avoided if there was an unbiased third party to umpire each conflict so that the doors of communication and diplomacy are always open.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

celebration.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TigerBright19 said:

However it has to be in context.   For instance which exact meeting was Putin referring to?  If he did not state which, then he would need to be asked so that the minutes can be obtained for verification of his claim.  Then again he may have been referring to a telephone call, in which case the transcript would need to be obtained from both sides for comparison.  Then again it could have been a letter sent by an official representing a higher authority who did not have permission to give such reassurances to the Kremlin and his blunder was hushed up, or it could have been a breakdown in communication with a document being incorrectly translated by an interpreter, or intercepted by a third party who fabricated evidence. 

Maybe even a disgruntled employee who led people down the wrong path because the cold war was ending and many agents were losing their jobs.  The possibilities a numerous. 

Without knowing exactly what Putin was referring to in detail, we only have officials giving their recollections to a meeting which may or may not even be related to what Putin was referring to.  We are just members of the public with a curious desire to know the truth.  If neither side can be trusted, then there should be an independent party with no affiliation who can mediate both sides.

I think many wars could have been avoided if there was an unbiased third party to umpire each conflict so that the doors of communication and diplomacy are always open.

 

 

We do know Putin wasnt at the meeiting ;)      

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, TigerBright19 said:

However it has to be in context.   For instance which exact meeting was Putin referring to? 

One he wasn't present at so why do you believe his account over Russian leaders who were in the room.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Setton said:

One he wasn't present at so why do you believe his account over Russian leaders who were in the room.

I don't.  When someone makes a claim and uses it as a basis for war, I think it is prudent to investigate it further so that the truth can be ascertained and the situation de-escalated.  It could be a simple case of a misunderstanding.  Maybe Putin made an error and his advisors were so loyal and afraid, that none of them wanted to correct him.  Maybe some of them wanted to make him blunder intentionally and set him up for the fall.  I believe in looking under every stone before reaching a conclusion.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TigerBright19 said:

I don't.  When someone makes a claim and uses it as a basis for war, I think it is prudent to investigate it further so that the truth can be ascertained and the situation de-escalated.  It could be a simple case of a misunderstanding.  Maybe Putin made an error and his advisors were so loyal and afraid, that none of them wanted to correct him.  Maybe some of them wanted to make him blunder intentionally and set him up for the fall.  I believe in looking under every stone before reaching a conclusion.

Except the mound of evidence that suggests Putin is just trying to excuse his illegal war.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice. **** you Putin.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Nice. **** you Putin.

My sentiments exactly. I love that the f@@@er has NATO right on his doorstep now after shooting his mouth off for decades about it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

My sentiments exactly. I love that the f@@@er has NATO right on his doorstep now after shooting his mouth off for decades about it.

Yep. He was afraid of "NATO expanding" and all he accomplished with his ****ed up invasion of Ukraine was causing NATO to grow.

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 3/8/2024 at 1:08 AM, TigerBright19 said:

Is it true that NATO promised Russia it would not expand as part of the agreement during the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Nations who joined NATO after the agreement. 

Poland

1999
Poland
Hungary
1999
Hungary
 
Czechia
1999
Czechia
 
Romania
2004
Romania
 
Slovakia
2004
Slovakia
 
Slovenia
2004
Slovenia
 
Bulgaria
2004
Bulgaria
 
Latvia
2004
Latvia
 
Lithuania
2004
Lithuania
 
Estonia
2004
Estonia
 
Albania
2009
Albania
 
Croatia
2009
Croatia
 
Montenegro
2017
Montenegro
 
North Macedonia
2020
North Macedonia
 
Finland
2023
Finland
 
Sweden
2024
Sweden
 
Russia asks NATO
"Is this a joke or what?"
 
 
...is Ukraine the final nail?
 
 

NATO says this isn't true. No one except Russia has made this claim.

Claim: NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War

Fact: Such an agreement was never made. NATO’s door has been open to new members since it was founded in 1949 – and that has never changed. This “Open Door Policy” is enshrined in Article 10 of NATO’s founding treaty, which says “any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic” can apply for membership. Decisions on membership are taken by consensus among all Allies. No treaty signed by the United States, Europe and Russia included provisions on NATO membership.

NATO - Topic: NATO-Russia relations: the facts (archive.org)

Edited by pellinore
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.