The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEric Margolis Archive
"Sorry Chump. You Didn't Have It In Writing"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

At a time when the United States is convulsed by anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Vladimir Putin, a trove of recently declassified Cold War documents reveals the astounding extent of the lies, duplicity and double-dealing engaged in by the western powers with the collapsing Soviet Union in 1990.

I was covering Moscow in those days and met some of the key players in this sordid drama. Ever since, I’ve been writing that the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, were shamelessly lied to and deceived by the United States, Britain, and their appendage, NATO.

All the western powers promised Gorbachev and Shevardnadze that NATO would not expand eastward by ‘one inch’ if Moscow would pull the Red Army out of East Germany and allow it to peacefully reunify with West Germany. This was a titanic concession by Gorbachev: it led to a failed coup against him in 1991 by Communist hardliners.

The documents released by George Washington University in Washington DC, which I attended for a semester, make sickening reading (see them online). All western powers and statesmen assured the Russians that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat and that a new era of amity and cooperation would dawn in post-Cold War Europe. US Secretary of State Jim Baker offered ‘ironclad guarantees’ there would be no NATO expansion. Lies, all lies.

Gorbachev was a humanist, a very decent, intelligent man who believed he could end the Cold War and nuclear arms race. He ordered the Red Army back from Eastern Europe. I was in Wunsdorf, East Germany, HQ of the Group of Soviet Forces, Germany, and at Stasi secret police HQ in East Berlin right after the pullout order was given. The Soviets withdrew their 338,000 troops and 4,200 tanks and sent them home at lightening speed.

Western promises made to Soviet leaders by President George W. H. Bush and Jim Baker quickly proved to be empty. They were honorable men but their successors were not. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush quickly began moving NATO into Eastern Europe, violating all the pledges made to Moscow.

The Poles, Hungarians and Czechs were brought into NATO, then Romania and Bulgaria, the Baltic States, Albania, and Montenegro. Washington tried to get the former Soviet Republics of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. The Moscow-aligned government of Ukraine was overthrown in a US-engineered coup. The road to Moscow was open.

All the bankrupt, confused Russians could do was denounce these eastward moves by the US and NATO. The best response NATO and Washington could come up with was, ‘well, there was no official written promise.’ This is worthy of a street peddler selling counterfeit watches. The leaders of the US, Britain, France, Belgium and Italy all lied. Germany was caught between its honor and imminent reunification. So even its Chancellor Helmut Kohl had to go along with the West’s prevarications.


At the time, I wrote that the best solution would be for the demilitarization of formerly Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe. NATO had no need or business to expand eastward. Doing so would be a constant provocation to Russia, which regarded Eastern Europe as an essential defensive glacis against invasions from the West.

Now, with NATO forces on its western borders, Russia’s deepest fears have been realized.

Today, US military aircraft based on the coasts of Romania and Bulgaria, former Warsaw Pact members, probe Russian airspace over the Black Sea and the vital strategic port of Sevastopol. Washington talks about arming chaotic Ukraine. US and NATO troops are in the Baltic, on Russia’s northwestern borders. Polish right-wingers are beating the war drums against Russia.

In 1990, KGB and CIA agreed to the principal of ‘not one inch’ eastward for NATO. Former US ambassador to Moscow, Jack Matlock, confirms the same agreement. Gorbachev, who is denounced as a foolish idealist by many Russians, trusted the Western powers. He should have had a battalion of New York City garment district shyster lawyers to document his agreements in 1990. He thought he was dealing with honest, honorable men, like himself.

Is it any wonder after this bait and switch diplomacy that Russia has no trust in the Western powers? Moscow watches US-run NATO oozing ever eastwards. Today, Russia’s leaders firmly believe Washington’s ultimate plan is to tear apart Russia and reduce it to an impotent, pauper nation. Two former Western leaders, Napoleon and Hitler, had similar plans.

Instead of carrying on about Hitler’s duplicity after Munich, we should look at our own shameless behavior after 1990.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: NATO, Russia, Soviet Union 
Hide 57 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Our lack of integrity in matters of state craft is disappointing. I can only think that it is endemic and is need of repair.

    • Replies: @pyrrhus
  2. Dan Hayes says:


    I wholeheartedly agree with your statements/arguments with one notable exception: that President George H W Bush and Jim Baker were honorable men!

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @attonn
    , @Thorby
  3. just look at the syria deals kerry made. they were all broken the moment he left the meeting. that says something. and that is also why NK fatboy is going to keep his nukes no matter what.

  4. FB says:

    It’s probably better this way…

    Even if Bush and Baker’s commitment was put on paper, I doubt it would have changed anything…

    The US has never honored anything it has put down on paper…starting with the treaties with Native Americans…

    The US constitution is likewise simply a worthless piece of paper that sits behind glass in a museum…

    The US actions in militarizing eastern Europe are hurting itself more than Russia…

    This is an empire with clay feet…

    As soon as the petrodallar disappears…so does the US as any kind of world power…and that day is coming quick…

    • Replies: @Man on the street
  5. Oddly enough, the US and UK are common law jurisdictions, where verbal warranties and representations can be taken into account in the course of adjudicating such disputes. Only question is where Russia might get fair treatment if they sue … Ninth Circuit?

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  6. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Dan Hayes

    HW was a party hack. Insofar, though, as that permitted him to be honorable, I tend to think he was. I don’t think he had any idea of the simple looting that would be undertaken in the years after his presidency.

    • Disagree: Dan Hayes
  7. pyrrhus says:

    It’s worse than that…No US agreement to anything has been upheld since 1918. Our Syrian and Ukraine duplicity and downright treachery is only the latest example.

  8. I had a room-mate in college that had an expression:

    “If you ain’t cheatin’, you ain’t tryin’.”

    He’s a bum now. Dropped out, been fired from dozens of low-end jobs.

    This is the attitude of the self-annointed “smartest people in the room” with foreign policy. They confuse treachery with wisdom.

    Oh ha ha, you believed us. Well it isn’t a one or two play game theoretic context. It is continuous repeated play with learning. The Russians have told us we are not capable of agreements. After this kind of treachery.

    So how do you gain any credibility or trust now? The Russians defeated ISIS. They’re pretty handy, I’d say. Worth having as allies.

    • Agree: Kiza
    • Replies: @Robert Anderson
  9. Most of this was promised in writing in 1997 in the “Founding Act”. It is easily found, yet unknown in the Western press.

    • Replies: @jhawk620
  10. Svigor says:

    Look, the Russians might’ve believed the assurances, but no way in Hell did they think they were binding. Nobody’s that stupid. They knew they weren’t binding, and they also knew they couldn’t get anything in writing. So they knew they were in a position of just taking us at our word, and hoping it was genuine, and hoping that subsequent US gov’ts would agree.

    “James Baker told me that America would prevent NATO expansion forever!*sighs like schoolgirl with crush*

    Gimme a break already.

    I was covering Moscow in those days and met some of the key players in this sordid drama. Ever since, I’ve been writing that the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, were shamelessly lied to and deceived by the United States, Britain, and their appendage, NATO.

    OMG! We lied to the Soviets! Let’s all kill ourselves!

    FUCK THE SOVIETS. They deserved a lot worse than being lied to. They’re lucky we didn’t just keep rolling in 1945 and kick their scummy asses out of eastern Europe.

  11. Svigor says:

    “We told the Soviets a bunch of lies so they would do the right thing.”

    Oh noes!

    Doing so would be a constant provocation to Russia, which regarded Eastern Europe as an essential defensive glacis against invasions from the West.

    Maybe it’s time for Russia to get over it.

    He should have had a battalion of New York City garment district shyster lawyers to document his agreements in 1990. He thought he was dealing with honest, honorable men, like himself.

    Nah, he knew he wouldn’t have been able to get anything in writing.

    Is it any wonder after this bait and switch diplomacy that Russia has no trust in the Western powers?

    Good. For 70 years, the rest of the world could trust Russia to do a lot worse than lie. They built all their high tech on shit they stole from us. They funded all kinds of subversive shit in the west. Jailed people for their politics, etc., etc., etc. The only thing they were really masters at was thievery and deception.

    P.S., I do think we should leave Belarus and Ukraine out of NATO (never mind places not even in Europe, like Turkey and Georgia), and stop fomenting coups and otherwise subverting European gov’ts.

    • Replies: @englishmike
    , @Kratoklastes
  12. Svigor says:

    If America is to be held to account for its gov’t lying in 1991, when Russian to be held accountable for the tens of millions of Soviet subjects its gov’t murdered in the 20th century?

    • Troll: Kiza
  13. Bill Jones says: • Website

    Who is this “we”?

  14. conatus says:

    Yeah the USA is run by unreliable representatives. If you watched the special on Vietnam you would see the instances of our duplicity chronicled in the sixties and seventies and we continued on in the nineties making false promises to a Russia that was woefully vulnerable at the time. All we did was take advantage of that with guys like Browder.

    We lied to the Russians in ’92 about not expanding NATO. They have reasons not to trust us.
    This used to be in the Wikipedia entry under ‘German Reunification’ but it seems to have disappeared down the memory hole(kind of like the former Soviet Union’s doctored photos.) Anyway the point is We in the US were the dishonorable participant and lied to the Russians when they were down and out. We lied to the Russians in ’92 and now Wikipedia lies to us in 2017. Wikipedia is great for noncontroversial subjects but anything that is contentious is probably duplicitous by omission as in this case.
    Paragraphs formerly from ‘German reunification’ Wikipedia

    “Jack Matlock, US ambassador to the Soviet Union during its final years, said that the West gave a “clear commitment” not to expand, and declassified documents indicate that Soviet negotiators were given the oral impression by diplomats like Hans-Dietrich Genscher and James Baker
    that NATO membership was off the table for countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Poland.[6] [7]

    In 1996, Gorbachev wrote in his Memoirs, that “during the negotiations on the unification of Germany they gave assurances that NATO would not extend its zone of operation to the east,”[8] and repeated this view in an interview in 2008.[9] According to Robert Zoellick, a State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four negotiating process, this appears to be a misperception, and no formal commitment regarding enlargement was made.[10] Other authors, such as Mark Kramer, have also highlighted that in 1990 neither side imagined that countries still technically in the Warsaw Pact or the Soviet Union could one day join NATO.[11]”

  15. Kiza says:

    I would love if anyone would quote just one international agreement that US signed and then respected for more than a couple years at most. “You did not have it writing” is a pure diversion of attention because by Margolis. A written and signed agreement would have made no difference at all. Just consider the example of SALT and ABM agreements, they were in writing. As soon as US believes it can gain an advantage by braking a verbal or written agreement, it claims that the other side has broken it and the agreements becomes irrelevant.

    The US is no-agreement capable, as Lavrov and Putin came to understand.

    The consolation is that all the rest of the West, all the US vassals in EU, are exactly the same. As an example, just remember how Germany, UK and France guaranteed to Yanukovytch, the elected President of Ukraine, peaceful early elections that he accepted, to be deposed by a coup the next morning after signing this “agreement” and withdrawing police according to this “agreement”.

    In conclusion, the West uses “agreements” only to relax and trick its victims into a false sense of temporary security.

    As to Margolis, as a CIA asset he is partial to the former head of the CIA, later President George H W Bush. Simply, there are no honorable men in Western politics, there is only promotion by journalistsic prostitutes.

    • Replies: @jhawk620
  16. jjc says:

    The link to the National Security Archive, which uncovered the documents which Margolis refers, was not active in the body of the article. They can be accessed here:

    What is , I suppose, shocking is the breadth and depth of the assurances from the top leadership across the NATO alliance.

    In my opinion, these assurances were not insincere or part of a planned dirty trick. What happens, and this goes back at least to the Fort Laramie Treaty in the 1860s, is differing power cliques see such agreements as non-binding since they did not participate in the negotiations. That is, the national security officials in the Clinton government were not the same as in the Bush administration which oversaw the end of the Cold War, just as it was a different set of people who decided to forcibly renege on agreements with the Plains tribes in the 1870s. Or the Trump team which wants to rip up the Iran agreement made by the Obama team.

    This disavowal of continuity is not how international diplomacy works, and displaying the credibility of a used car salesman eventually catches up, as it has.

  17. Look at the bright side. Without the Soviet withdrawal how could Germany rush into its national suicide project? It couldn’t! And we can’t overstate the comedy involved in that.

    Margolis says expanding NATO into EE “would be a constant provocation to Russia, which regarded Eastern Europe as an essential defensive glacis against invasions from the West.”

    What about what those Eastern European countries want? Do their opinions count? Or are they just “right-wingers” who need to be squished? They do have some experience with Russia, not all of it good.

  18. attonn says:
    @Dan Hayes

    Exactly! If those two have given all those promises, how come they remained totally silent afterwards when all of their vows were proven to be totally fake? Zero honor there.

    • Agree: Dan Hayes
  19. @Svigor

    P.S., I do think we should leave Belarus and Ukraine out of NATO…

    Has it been seriously suggested that Belarus should be part of NATO? It has been described as the last surviving dictatorship in the former Soviet Union.

    A joke shared among Belarussian dissidents:
    “Mr President, the good news is that you’ve won the election.”
    “So is there some bad news?”
    “I’m afraid so. Nobody voted for you.”

  20. llloyd says: • Website

    Once you have a large professional army caste, they will work to extend borders and create enemies. That is their nature. Hadrian ended the Roman wars by consolidating the Eastern borders against the resurgent Sassanian Persian Empire, and building Hadrian wall across Northern Britain to keep the Romans in and the barbarians out. Sounds familiar? I personally think the war games over North Korea is Trump’s and Kim’s way to keep their huge armies out of real mischief. They may well be having a quiet chuckle together.

  21. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The western man exults much at his glory, but fails to truly comprehend the price he has been paying for it. Reminds one of that myth of the Faustian bargain.

    Dishonour, Hubris, Mendacity, Mass Murder, Greed, Degeneracy, Psychopathy… you name any evil, the western man excels in it, and has mastered the art of Deception, to mask it all well. Satan’s minion in a suit.

    It appears that, Evil does pay, in requisite proportionality… in this world.

    May God save the true faithful from such a “glory.”

  22. jhawk620 says:

    Where is your proof that Margolis is a CIA asset?

  23. Didi says:

    Today hostile armies are located closer to Moscow than at the time of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.

    • Replies: @Avery
  24. Avery says:

    Unlike 1939 or 1941, today Moscow has 1,000s of tactical and strategic nukes that it will use to destroy those hostile armies as soon as they cross the border into RF, and may also let the people sitting in their comfortable offices giving orders to those hostile armies know the errors of their ways by way of some Sarmatograms.

    • Replies: @Anon
  25. It’s really not that complicated. What’s transpiring between Russia and the US today, is a continuation (or revival) of the Cold War hoax.

  26. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    So with their national security thus assured, why don’t they quit complaining?

    • Replies: @Avery
  27. bluedog says:

    If I remember right we or England (one and the same) gamed attacking Russia after the war, and the answer that came back was “WHAT ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FREAKING MINDS” for you will get your ass kicked,well that came later in a place called Vietnam…

  28. Gorby didn’t watch THE GODFATHER.

  29. Gorbachev was a humanist, a very decent, intelligent man who believed he could end the Cold War and nuclear arms race.

    It is rather a dubious statement, since results of his activities testify to a dramatically opposite traits in him: from being nedalyoukii (not very bright), to cowardly and being a consummate careerist. There is a reason that he is one of the most despised personalities in Russia, but what Russians think, of course, doesn’t matter, especially those millions Russians who either died or weren’t born as a result of Gorbachev’s surrendering the country to both foreign interests and, what is more important, to a gang of power-hungry adventurists. He also is an exhibit A of a demagogue. But other than that–sure, he is a decent man.

  30. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Margolis never mentions the thoughts and opinions of the former Warsaw Pact vassals and former Soviet republics. Maybe they are tired of being invaded by Russia. Their only alternative to joining NATO and the EU was getting their own nuclear deterrents, which probably looks like a good idea to many of them given the cold winds blowing from the East.

  31. Thorby says:
    @Dan Hayes

    You lost me after the part about George Bush and Jim Baker being honorable men. They are NWO whores IMHO. That line made me sick. I WANT TO PUKE! You lost any credibility you have with that one little statement! BYE NWO guy!

  32. Thorby says:

    Another coward who moderates.What a snowflake!

  33. Avery says:

    {…….why don’t they quit complaining?}

    Who is ‘they’?
    And who is complaining about what exactly?

    And in case you are amnesiac about history like the assorted warmongers and delusional Neocons, more often than not, wars get started because some idiots think it will be a ‘cakewalk’ , with zero blowback.

    You remember the Iraqi ‘cakewalk’, don’t you?
    When delusional Neocons like Pearl, Walfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et. al. assured the skeptics that it would be a ‘cakewalk’ (sic), that Americans would be greeted with flowers, and not only that……but all of it would be paid for by US “making arrangements” (wink, wink) to handle the vast Iraqi oil wealth, meaning steal it.

    So how did the ‘cakewalk’ turn out?
    4,500 Americans killed.
    30,000 wounded.
    $2 trillion in additional debt on American taxpayers.
    US is on its way out of Iraq and Iran has moved in.

    And finally: in any war inside or near Russia, particularly a nuclear exchange, will result in the deaths of 10s of 1,000s, maybe 100s of 1,000s of RF citizens. Little consolation that the invaders will be wiped out. If you think any Russia leader is looking forward to having that many RF citizens killed – you are insane. Like the Neocon warmongers who are constantly agitating for war with Russia.

    • Agree: bluedog
  34. rosemerry says:

    How pathetic. Not only are you ignorant enough to pretend the Yanks, not the USSR, won the war in Europe, but you want to pretend that your exceptional men have any idea of dealing with real attacks on the Homeland. You think that dishonesty, untrustworthiness and other US “diplomatic traits” are something to be proud of???

  35. Bush didn’t want to expand NATO to the borders of the Soviet Union. But, that doesn’t matter much. Without a treaty on the matter, Bush couldn’t bind Clinton. From a foreign policy standpoint, Clinton was incompetent and stupid. Admitting eastern Europe to NATO got us nothing.

  36. @Backwoods Bob

    That’s also Trump’s MO for everything. He calls it “being smart”. His downfall is fast approaching.

  37. @The Alarmist

    Good question.

    To the extent that Russia is perceived by the Left as (1) basically a white country, (2) a relatively Christian country, and (3) somehow associated with Trump, the Ninth Circuit’s judges and their staff would be the last place to expect a fair hearing for claims by Russia.

  38. @Svigor

    Do the Russians also deserve being lied to? Because the USSR hasn’t existed for quite a while now, in case you haven’t noticed.

    And apart from questions of “deserving”, do you think that Russia, China, or other governments/peoples should trust what “our” government says and conclude agreements with it?

    If they logically shouldn’t make agreements with the US government, is that state of affairs in the interest of the American people?

    • Replies: @Matra
    , @Astuteobservor II
  39. Matra says:

    Do the Russians also deserve being lied to?

    After the way they lied so shamelessly after MH17 – hundreds of dead Nordics – I wouldn’t worry any more about Russians and the truth. Not that expanding NATO is a good thing – I oppose the very existence of that outdated organisation – but Western paleos/traditionalists (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) crying for poor Russia are now not that much different from American Christian Zionists who cry for poor widdle Israel.

    BTW it is interesting to read Eric Margolis complaining about NATO expansion. He was the biggest war hawk on Bosnia and Kosovo in the entire Canadian media during the 90s. He spent most of the decade fuming with rage over NATO’s lack of action against the big bad Serbs because of their supposed mistreatment of Muslims. Yet as soon as the so-called War on Terror (ie Sunni Muslim terrorists) began he suddenly turned against that same NATO. Hmm…

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    , @Jeff
  40. @Svigor

    Jailed people for their politics, etc., etc., etc.

    Jesus wept – you sound as tin-eared as an Ashkenazi ‘settler’. I take it you ‘studied’ the version of history that they teach in government schools.

    Never heard of McCarthyism? HUAC? Prior to that, the Overman, Fish, and McCormack-Dickstein committees? (Fun fact: while Dickstein was “jail[ing] people for their politics”, he was on the payroll of the NKVD; while Hoover was “jail[ing] people for their politics”, he was being blackmailed by organised crime because of his homosexuality and pederasty).

    How about the internment of all Japanese-Americans (not just those who were suspected of sympathy towards Imperial Japan)? Heard about that?

    Your ignorance of the misdeeds of the US government, and blind acceptance of the claimed misdeeds of the late-era (i.e., post-Stalin) Soviet governments, is unforgivable in a world where information is almost free.

    It’s also staggering given that this week marked the release of a stunning documentary revisiting the CIA-orchestrated murder (of microbiologist Olson) – which made it absolutely clear that the US hierarchy had death squads that operated in the continental US and killed people who were adjudged to be a risk.

    Note that the targets were not those who were known to have Communist sympathies, but simply those who might expose US use of biological weapons in Korea out of a sense that such behaviour is not representative of ‘American Values’ (naïve, right?).

    I hasten to add that I hold no brief for the Soviet government – I am an anarchist and so I am opposed to all governments.

  41. Anonymous [AKA "Carinyo"] says:

    As a former Lawyer I can only come up with one answer as to why a Soviet leader would not require a formal agreement in writing in response to a possible military encirclement. That would be because Gorbachev was paid/bribed to throw the former USSR into a bucket of turd for and behalf of the USA/Israel. Gorbachev was part and parcel of the rape that the US did after the USSR was disbanded.
    This is also the Russian opinion, which is why Gorbachev is the most hated man in recent Russian history.

    Moreover, we have Gorbachev ignoring the results of the 1991 referendum in which the people of the USSR voted overwhelmingly not to disband. But was disbanded anyway by Gorbachev.

    Then we have the very real actions of Ambassador Thomas Pickering coming to Moscow with suitcases full of dollars with the aim of bribing many of the former Soviets nomenclatura. A fact confirmed by a former lawyer of the CIA I had the misfortune to have worked with. Gorbachev cannot and does not live in Russia WHY? Because the people in public places would tear him apart!

  42. MBlanc46 says:

    Kicking their scummy asses out of Eastern Europe might well have been a task that exceeded the capabilities of the US.

  43. anon • Disclaimer says:

    Mr. Margolis should look at the bright side. With the Ruskies gone and the iron curtain torn down there are now so many more white nations for his beloved Muslims to pour into and colonize.

    • Replies: @Avery
  44. Avery says:

    { With the Ruskies gone and the iron curtain torn down there are now so many more white nations for his beloved Muslims to pour into and colonize.}

    Well, not really.
    The only European countries actively resisting EU/Brussels edicts to be forcibly Islamized are former Warsaw Pact countries. You know, the ones who were behind the Iron Curtain and were thankfully not subject to decades long Western Neocon brainwashing and State-sponsored de-Christianization.

    Too bad Western Europe was not behind the Iron Curtain also: if it were, there would be no Muslim invasion today there if they were Sovietized and immunized. They’d surely be poorer, but would still be Germans, English, French……like, you know, Polish, Hungarian, Czech,….

    • Replies: @anon
  45. @Anonymous

    Moreover, we have Gorbachev ignoring the results of the 1991 referendum in which the people of the USSR voted overwhelmingly not to disband. But was disbanded anyway by Gorbachev.

    Well, this is not exactly true since USSR was disbanded by three a-holes: Yeltsin, Kravchuck and Shushkevich. But Gorbachev’s almost surreal inaction earlier certainly stands out and is very telling. Other than that: the POV that Gorbachev and his circle (from late Yakovlev who is characterized as CIA asset to Vadim Bakatin) were essentially a Liquidation Committee in full recognition of what they were doing is both overwhelmingly popular and justified in Russia. I, with some minor quibbles, also share this POV. In other words, while Soviet Union’s internal problems were great and undeniable, it took Gorbachev and his clique, both through sheer incompetence and very well observed malice, to aggravate situation to the point of no return. In the end, the guy himself was and is a coward.

  46. Art Deco says:

    That would be because Gorbachev was paid/bribed to throw the former USSR into a bucket of turd for and behalf of the USA/Israel. Gorbachev was part and parcel of the rape that the US did after the USSR was disbanded.

    You adhere to mythologies like this, it ends badly unless it has no effect on the behavior of any party with actual influence.

  47. @RadicalCenter

    the raving lunatic doesn’t understand that if no country trusts our word anymore, that means our diplomacy will be officially dead. that means our alliances, assurances, treaties, deals will all be dead. that effectively kills our entire soft power and cuts into our hardpower too as it will kill our alliances.

    that is one retarded psycho.

  48. Anonymous [AKA "Nota Benz"] says:

    Blackmail and other private influence likely figures into actions East and West.
    Truth is flexible in public.
    Qui bono?

  49. anon • Disclaimer says:

    It seems my sarcasm was lost on you.

    • Replies: @Avery
  50. @Matra

    “After the way they lied so shamelessly after MH17 ….”

    Did they? I saw no real evidence that conclusively pointed the finger at the Russians, but I did see evidence that opened the door to the possibility that the Ukes did the deed.

    BTW, did those impounded ATC recordings ever see the light of say?

  51. Avery says:

    Nope: I picked it up.

    But you gave me an opening to remind people, again, of many East European counties’ heroic resistance to forced Islamization by Brussels.
    Not you, but the general UNZ readership.


  52. Anonymous [AKA "Michael Green"] says: • Website

    Like almost everyone else, Margolis gets his facts dead wrong. As Gorbachev makes clear, and as the speech to which the article below makes clear, the topic of whether NATO would expand eastwards never came up. The USSR was still intact, the Warsaw Pact was in effect and the dissolution of the USSR unimagined and unimaginable. The topic under discussion was whether NATO military would expand eastward within Germany and thereby threaten the USSR. The US did not break its promise, but the expansion is part of its wanton imperial aggression. If this view is mistaken, Margolis has not provided a single citation to show it.

    When one reads the full text of the Woerner speech cited by Putin, it is clear that the secretary general’s comments referred to NATO forces in eastern Germany, not a broader commitment not to enlarge the Alliance (or even NATO military in countries that might join NATO).

    Former Soviet President Gorbachev’s View

    We now have a very authoritative voice from Moscow confirming this understanding. Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “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.”

  53. Jeff says:

    The Russians lied about MH17? You gotta back that one up, and be careful about references with too much pro-west spin…

    The more likely answer is that Ukrainians did it…

    • Replies: @Man on the street
  54. @FB

    American exceptionalism means that we are above the law. Just like Hillary, Obama, and W. Bush are. The laws are for the regular stiffs.

  55. @Jeff

    You also probably think that Victoria Nuland “Fu-ck the EU” was simply supporting democracy in the Ukraine by paying Nazis to unseat the elected president, and appoint an American Jew as the president of Ukraine to continue to antagonize Putin? Soros, the CIA, and the neocon Jews have absolutely nothing to do with the so called “revolution” in the Ukraine?

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Margolis Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in...
Bin Laden is dead, but his strategy still bleeds the United States.
Egyptians revolted against American rule as well as Mubarak’s.
A menace grows from Bush’s Korean blind spot.
Far from being a model for a “liberated” Iraq, Afghanistan shows how the U.S. can get bogged down Soviet-style.