Russia WAS Promised NO NATO EXPANSION

Former Head of Strategic Studies, US Army War College speaks out—says it was (technically) Europe, not US, that made the promise

9
4938

Watch the full uncensored FFWN above, click HERE for links to stories we covered

By Kevin Barrett, VT Editor

Alan Sabrosky, former Head of Strategic Studies, US Army War College, has come out of retirement to confirm that NATO did indeed promise Russia that NATO would not expand even one inch eastward.

The promise was referred to in the minutes of a March 6, 1991 meeting of US, UK, French, and German diplomats.

Below is a rough transcript beginning around 38′.

Kevin Barrett: Now we arrive at the issue we mentioned earlier, which is the smoking guns proving that indeed Russia was promised that NATO would not expand even one inch eastward after the end of the Cold War. Willy Wimmer, parliamentary secretary to Germany’s defense minister from 1985 to 1992, has been talking about this.

And then the smoking gun document (above) shows clearly that this was the case. The promise was made, and then NATO quickly broke it—why, I’m not really sure, Alan. I guess they wanted to loot Russia’s natural resources.

Allan Sabrosky: Well, it was the sort of thing where we could do it. There was a drunken lout named Yeltsin as president of Russia, and there was very little we couldn’t do. We plundered Russia economically and plundered it politically. Yeltsin was completely incapable of responding in an effective way to any expansion of NATO beyond its borders. We could do it, and so we did.

Kevin Barrett: There’s got to be more motivation than that. I think it had to do with grabbing Russia’s raw materials.

Alan Sabrosky: Well, partly that. But even more than that, I think a general idea was that the Soviet Empire had collapsed, and with that collapse, there was an opportunity to preclude any resurgence of Russian power, the Soviet Union generally being seen as a recasting of the Russian empire—correct or not, that’s how it was generally seen—and that that resurgence could be precluded by extending the frontiers of NATO. So we could do it, and there was a good reason for doing it, politically, and Russia was too weak to do anything to stop it.

Kevin Barrett: So having credibility by keeping your promises apparently wasn’t even an issue.

Alan Sabrosky: We weren’t a signatory.

Kevin Barrett: Right, it never got signed in blood.

Alan Sabrosky: We weren’t there. It was the Soviet Union, Britain, Germany, and France. Those were the four powers. We were not involved in it.

Kevin Barrett: As I recall, there is evidence of a US promise as well.

Alan Sabrosky: We were an observer. It’s a fig leaf…

Kevin Barrett: It’s typical of the hypocrisy of the Western leadership as their standard operating procedure.

SOURCECNN.com

ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy

9 COMMENTS

  1. So, what’s new? What have Zionist Israel done in Palestine since the U.N. created it in 1948? The Zionist Terror State is getting away with GENOCIDE, while the World is standing by!

  2. The ENGLISH language is so peculiar that it can be twisted and interpreted with different objectives.

  3. for a particular kind of WorldView, a promise has no substance if the promise is with an inferior.
    Laws have no substance if the victim is inferior.
    For some, the integrity of promises (and similarly for law, money, etc) is a measure of the personal integrity, independent of the other.
    For a particular kind of WorldView, the integrity of promises (and similarly for law, money, etc) need be no more susbtantial than their respect for the other.

  4. I’m sure in Vienna an Iranian diplomat is using this exact example as the reason why Iran needs reassurance and verification of sanction removal for every step of a new agreement.
    I don’t think anyone can openly trust a western politician anymore. Not that they ever did …

    • And it’s cop-out to claim that no one can phuk with pentagon. By virtue of years of lying to themselves they all end up believing their bullshit wars as patriotic.

  5. I saw it in a TV documentary – they said that these documents or copies are in the UK. And they can serve as direct proof of Putin’s words.

Comments are closed.