The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewIsrael Shamir Archive
The Hunt for Red October
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

These days, Sweden is all agog. In the midst of the coldest summer in living history that deprived the Swedes of their normal sun-accumulating July routine, the country plunged into an exciting search for a Russian submarine in the Stockholm archipelago, and (as opposed to the previous rounds of this venerable Swedish maritime saga) this time they actually found the beast.

Now we know for certain the Russians had intruded into the Swedish waters! The Swedish admirals and the Guardian journalists probably feel themselves vindicated, as they always said so. Does it matter that the U-boat was sunk one hundred years ago, in 1916? Surely it does not, for the Russians are the same Russians and the sea is the same sea!

I would continue in the same vein and have a lot of fun, but many innocent readers (especially on the internet) are not attuned for irony. If they read Swift’s Modest Proposal, they’d call the police. For the benefit of the reader in whom is no guile (John 1:47), I’ll say it in plain words: the Swedish Navy and the great British newspaper Guardian made fools of themselves again, as they blamed the Russian president Putin for sending a submarine that turned out to be a one hundred year old war relic.

The U-boat called Som (Catfish) had been built in the US in 1901 for the Russian Navy, served in World War I and went down with all hands in 1916. The Swedes admitted that much, but, as in the one-liner about a guest suspected of stealing silver spoons, the spoons were found, but the ill feeling loitered.

The previous round of this pleasant Swedish pastime took place last October 2014 when the search for Russian submarines in the Stockholm archipelago, that is, in the archipelago of thousands of islands in the Baltic Sea, began in earnest. Nessie of the Loch Ness would envy the hunt. In the newspapers, on radio and on television, they spoke only of the mysterious submarine, that allegedly had sent a distress signal to the Russian naval base in Kaliningrad from the Swedish waters. Millions of krona were spent on the futile search. A video of the U-boat rising was released. Eye witnesses reported they saw a man in black emerging from the sea near a tiny island. As the water temperature was about 10°C (50°F) this could not be a Swede, it’s got to be a Russian Spetznaz man, as they are immune to cold…

The old-timers told the press that the sailors of the damaged Russian submarine probably landed on an island in the archipelago and waited there for rescue. “There are many uninhabited cottages, they should be searched”, they proposed to the horror of wealthy Stockholmers, the cottage owners. Dozens of military vessels in cutting-edge-state-of-art Stealth armour ploughed the waters. Depth charges killed a few dolphins and other sea animals. Newspapers warned that of Russian naval commando hunts for Ukrainians in Stockholm pubs.

There were sane voices, too, but they rarely were given a chance to be heard. Wilhelm Agrella, a professor of Intelligence Analysis at Lund University spoke of “budget submarines” invented by the Swedish navy in order to boost its budget.

In the end, all sightings were accounted for. One was a Swedish private submarine belonging to a Lasse Schmidt Westrén, another one was a Dutch one that participated in NATO manoeuvres. The alleged distress signal has been sent by a Swedish transponder, and had nothing to do with Russia or Kaliningrad.

There was no Russian U-boat to hunt. The true goal of the hunters has been Swedish neutrality. Sweden was and remains notionally neutral, while the US wants to see the country integrated into NATO.

The Hunt for Red October in October 2014 was a new round in the Second Cold War, the war against independent Russia. As a Social Democrat government came to power in September 2014, the Swedish Army, Navy and pro-NATO media plotted to prevent a possible rapprochement of Russia and Sweden.

This is not the first plot of this kind. In 1982, the Swedish military conspired with their colleagues in the United States and Britain against its Social Democrat government. Although the Swedish navy knew that NATO submarines operate in the Swedish waters, they played along with the right-wing politicians and talked about the ‘Russian threat’. Only much later the truth was found out – the government commission appointed by the Social Democrats after their return to power showed that there were no Russian U-boats.

This was subsequently proven by a member of the Swedish government commission, a leading Norwegian military expert Ola Tunander in his detailed 400 page long work, The Secret War Against Sweden: US and British Submarine Deception in the 1980s (London: Frank Cass 2004).

In the eighties, Ola Tunander did not doubt the reality of Russian submarines, and had written several textbooks and manuals for Swedish sailors on the subject. Only after the fall of the Soviet Union, he gained access to all files at the request of the Swedish government, and came to the unequivocal conclusion that all the evidence about the Russian submarine incursions was falsified or invented.

Classified documents clearly point to the US and the UK as the culprits, and this was confirmed by the former US Secretary of Defence Weinberger and British commanders in the secret hearing, says Tunander. It turned out that in the seventies, after the Vietnam War, the Americans and their British allies were preoccupied with the pro-Soviet sympathies of the Swedes. The Swedes stubbornly refused to see the enemy in his great eastern neighbour. In 1976, only 6% of Swedes believe in the Russian threat, and another 27% thought the USSR is an unfriendly power.


Even the Afghan war had only marginally changed these figures. And only the submarine panic bore fruit – by the mid-80s, 42% of Swedes believed in the imminent Russian threat and 83% considered the USSR being an enemy. In order to achieve this revolution in the minds, the British and American submarines made hundreds of violations of Swedish waters. They intruded into the inner harbour of Stockholm, raised their periscopes and antennas in the archipelago, posing as “the Red Scare.”

The USSR did not have submarines of the class detected by the Swedish radar (35-40 meters long), but the United States had the submarine NR-1, that was used to penetrate the Soviet waters.

In 1981 there was an amusing accident – an old Soviet submarine lost its bearings and ran aground close to the Swedish coast. This single incident was been blown out of all proportion; rumours of Russian submarines in every bay flooded Sweden.

In October 1982, the Swedish fleet mounted a huge operation to capture or destroy a submarine sighted near the island of Muskö. The operation was attended by hundreds of journalists from all over the world.

Ola Tunander says the bridge of the sighted submarine had a NR-1’s square shape, not the shape of the Soviet submarines. The American submarine had been delivered to Stockholm waters by the American tanker Monongahela, coming on an official visit. They left the submarine, so it went around and scared the Swedes. The command of the Swedish navy had been warned, the navy knew about it, took part in the hunt for the submarine, and concealed the truth from the Social Democrat government.

So the Swedish military conspired with the Americans and British against their own country. The Swedes managed to hit the submarine, and it released a cloud of yellow-green dye – the distress signal of the US submarine fleet. Swedish sailors allowed the submarine to leave.

Henry Kissinger, the US Secretary of State, thanked the Swedish sailors for allowing the U-boat to leave and keeping mum. The Swedish government did not believe that this was a Russian submarine, but under pressure from the media and the navy, they were forced to lodge a protest to the Soviet Union. The Swedish – Russian relations soured.

In October 2014, the then (1982-1985) Foreign Minister Lennart Budström remembered this plot of the right-wing politicians and the Swedish military. He bitterly recalled in an interview for the newspaper Expressen how in 1982 the Swedish navy hunted an alleged Soviet submarine in Hårsfjärden thirty miles from Stockholm – it was the culmination of the scandal.

The government convened a commission to figure out where the submarine originated – in Russia or NATO. The most active member of the commission was the young right-wing politician Carl Bildt – he practically wrote the commission’s report, saying this was a Soviet submarine. He claimed there was an acoustic signal recording and other evidence. Only in 1988 it emerged that the Swedish army and navy did not intercept any signals from submarines. It was all a lie of Carl Bildt, says Budström.

Bildt (with American support) had spread panic in the press. He claimed the Russian submarines make their way right into the centre of Stockholm, land troops and prepare for the invasion. Russian submarine sailors sneak into Stockholm bars to drink beer and squeeze Swedish blondes. Army and Coast Guard supplied photo of submarine periscopes for the front pages of newspapers.

“You are welcome to sink these subs – calmly said the Secretary General Yuri Andropov in 1984, after listening to the Swedish prime minister Olof Palme’s complaint. – We’d only approve of such a move.”

Only twenty years later, the meaning of Andropov’s words became clear. The submarines in the Swedish waters were not Russian, but English and American. Instead of invasion, they had another plan, namely to sow enmity and distrust of Russia.


Budström retired as he stood for friendship with Russia, and in his stead, the Minister of Foreign Affairs became (and remained until recently) Carl Bildt, a staunch pro-American Atlanticist, a supporter of Swedish accession to NATO, the greatest enemy of the USSR and Russia. It is alleged that Bildt in his youth was associated with a clandestine anti-communist combat organization created by the Americans for the event of the Soviet occupation of Western Europe, known as Stay Behind or Gladio.

Its members founded the secret US Fifth Column in Europe. The State Department dispatches published by the Wikileaks, indicate that the US embassy and the State Department took care of Bildt and helped his career. Bildt was a personal friend of Karl Rove, Bush’s adviser, and actively supported the US intervention in Iraq.

Carl Bildt, the most inveterate enemy of Russia since the days of Karl XII, is a descendant of an aristocratic Scandinavian family (they had been Prime Ministers and Commanders since the 17th century). For a quarter of a century he was the most influential politician in Sweden, in government or in opposition, and he determined its anti-Russian course.

Carl Bildt has been closely associated with the submarine affair from the beginning to the end. In 1982, he denounced the Soviet invaders and earned brownie points. In 1990, Carl Bildt said that the Soviet Union has created a special force to attack Sweden. According to him, up to 22 Russian submarines participated in three annual manoeuvres in Swedish waters.

This fear-mongering has helped – in 1991 Bildt became the Prime Minister. In 1992 Bildt went to Moscow with the alleged old recordings of the submarine. Now we know for certain that these were sounds made by otters, but in Yeltsin’s days the thoroughly defeated Russian government agreed these were Russian submarines.

When the Social Democrats returned to power in 1994, says ex-minister Budström, a new commission was established, and it is completely refuted all allegations of Bildt. The first commission was composed of politicians, and the second – of scientists, and the findings were different. But that was too late. Sweden has been integrated it the EU and began to support American foreign policy.

One of the reasons is the media. The Atlanticist tendency in Sweden has almost complete control over the media. They manufacture a Russian threat a day, to scare the wits out of the Swedes. “Russia is a potential threat,” – says a leading Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagbladet (30.05). In the same issue of the newspaper, its Moscow correspondent Anna-Lena Lauren says: “Russia is clearly threatening the Baltic States.”


NATO planes fly close to Russia borders through Swedish airspace, in violation of Swedish sovereignty and neutrality, but Swedish media hardly ever reports of such frequent incidents. However, Russian air force training flights that stay clear of Swedish airspace are presented as a proof that the Russians are preparing to invade not only Sweden, but all the Baltic countries.

Even a report on delivering Russian air defence systems to far away Syria has been used to portray Russia as an aggressive monster preparing to subdue Sweden. The army provided the newspapers with a grim prediction: “The Russians can take over Sweden in a few days.”

Perhaps it is true, but why should they? Neither now or in their greatest years of power has any Russian ruler—Tsar, General Secretary or President—ever wanted to invade Sweden. The last war between two neighbours took place over two hundred years ago. Russians have not the slightest intention to fight Swedes, but the Swedish army and the Swedish media are determined to present Russia as their mortal enemy. The army wants to increase the military budget; their political allies and their media say that only joining NATO would save the Swedish beauty from the Russian bear’s claws.

This attitude is not helpful for the well-being of the two great northern powers. They are closely related. Ancestors of the Swedes were among founders of Russia, many Swedish noblemen served the Russian Crown. The Swedes and the Russians have the same birch trees growing along the river banks; the same mushrooms and berries grow in the same forests on both sides of the Baltic sea. Swedes and Russians experimented with socialism, mined ore and coal, felled trees, love their sauna and hockey. Russians are quite fond of Swedes: Peter the Great drank the health of the Swedish generals and called them ‘his teachers’, after thrashing them at Poltava.

Russia and Sweden have no dispute, no common border to argue about, no historic mishaps. All major Swedish companies – Ikea and Volvo, to mention some – have a profitable trade in Russia. Russians, especially the dwellers of St Petersburg region, go to Sweden on weekends. It is a short drive via Finland. Many Russians settled in Sweden, and Swedish businessmen are accustomed to Russia.

Russian policies towards Sweden and the West are marked with moderation, restraint and conservatism. They do not want to invade or conquer Sweden or other Western countries. Russia wants to be treated with respect, keep foreigners out of its internal affairs, and it wants other countries to take Russia’s legitimate interests into account (read: Ukraine). But these Russian wishes are considered only when the West is not united.

After 1991, all of the major Western countries for the first time in world history were united (to some degree) under the military, political and economic leadership of the United States. They have a single united system of ideological control and hegemony via global media, social networks, and universities. I called this system “The Masters of Discourse.” Such setup is detrimental for Russia.

The Atlanticists want to keep the world united under their rule, military via NATO and ideological through the Masters of Discourse system. Russia does not want world domination, does not want to rule over Europe or Asia or Sweden. But it can’t accept the US hegemony either, for they would turn it into a snow-bound Nigeria, an oil-producing country of the third world.


For the Russians, normal relations with Sweden are an essential element of peace and stability in the Baltic Sea. Russia appreciates Swedish neutrality and the balanced policy of Sweden in Olof Palme’s times. It has no desires to meddle in Swedish affairs and would like to have friendly relations. Now, after Carl Bildt’s departure, there is hope for improved relations between the new Social Democrat government in Sweden and Russia. And now the old trick is played again, the scare of Russian submarines. We’ll see whether this government will manage the real threat of right-wing plots better than its predecessors.

Israel Shamir can be contacted at [email protected]

• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: NATO, Russia, Sweden 
Hide 37 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Tom_R says:


    Thanks for the interesting article, Sir. You are very right. The Swedish media is also lying conning & scamming the poor Swedes by telling them Russia is the enemy so as to distract them. It is like a bank robber distracts the poor cashier by telling her that an old man in the other line is stealing candy and while she looks there, steals her cash box.

    So Russia is the old dying man the Swedish media is conning the poor Swedes about so they will not notice who is destroying their country through massive 3rd world immigration.

    Most of the rapes of white women and most of the crime against the Swedes is done by 3rd world aliens. Sweden is being flooded with 3rd world immigration, for the purpose of genocide and ethnic cleansing of the Swedes. The Oligarchs have targeted Sweden for total destruction by 3rd world aliens. The Oligarchs own and operate their main left wing party in power and much of the media that promotes the alien invasion and distracts the public with lies about Russia to deflect anger away from the Oligarchs.

    You can see Barbara Lerner Spectre advocating genocide and destruction of European whites, specially Swedes, here:

    • Replies: @Pacific
  2. When will Sweden drop politically motivated charges of failure to use condoms against Julian Assange?

    • Replies: @dahoit
  3. Hibernian says:

    So, OK, the Soviet sub navigated narrow straits to get to where it went aground, near the Swedish naval base. Who are we to doubt the Soviet explanation that they got lost due to a math error by the navigation officer? (Article by Captain Pope linked in the Wikipedia article.) So some torpedoes were nuclear armed. Just standard procedure. Only right wing fanatics ever doubted the good intentions of the Soviets. (Captain Pope notes that there were alterations in the Soviet logbook immediately prior to the sub’s capture by the Swedes.)

  4. Great piece, I love how they recycle the same plot from the friggin ’80s. Hey it failed once, let’s try it again! Wtf?

  5. Rurik says:

    So it was all a ruse by the US to blame Putin and sow discord between Sweden and Russia so the Fiend could bring Sweden into NATO’s sphere of influence and hopefully cajole her to even joining.

    Sounds exactly like what they’re doing in Ukraine and with all the lies about MH17.

  6. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    Who are we to doubt the Soviet explanation that they got lost due to a math error by the navigation officer?

    If you would know the organization of watches on the project 613 subs, especially when navigator was sleep deprived–you would have no problems understanding it. But since Swedes lost thousands of people and a whole city destroyed as the result of this sub running into the ground….oh, wait–nothing of like happened. But whatever feeds Swedish paranoia, as long as it doesn’t address real problems of Sweden, I guess, it is just fine.

  7. annamaria says:

    “Only right wing fanatics ever doubted the good intentions of the Soviets.”

    This is somewhat out of topic, but look how benevolent the US and Sweden have been toward Assange:
    Do you see a pattern of slander and outright disinformation? This is not to whitewash the Soviets (a past story), but to point your attention towards the massive and well-funded use of MSM around the globe to promote a narrative of plutocracy. The smarties like ugly Hayden and such are not able to factor in the horrors of an inadvertently started nuclear conflict (this kind of comprehension is not profitable for MIC). Note that the US are not interested in diplomacy (this is not my assumption; this is a well known fact) and that the headlong method of solving “problems” is not an accident (for example, see The peace dividends do not go to the pockets of weapon manufacturers and they do not take into consideration the desires of mega corporations to have (“acquire”) mineral and other resources in other countries.
    Just a quick look at NATO increasing presence on the borders of Russian Federation gives more information about the US plans in Eastern Europe than any lengthily articles about bad intentions of Russians.
    “The U.S. finances 75 percent of NATO expenditures with a defense budget of \$585 billion for 2015, or 3.6 percent of U.S. GDP.”

  8. Art says:

    “Republican frontrunner Donald Trump said Friday that the U.S. should only step in on Crimea if European countries ask for help and, until then, it remains “Europe’s problem.””

    Yes – yes – YES!

    Trump – an American for America.

    • Replies: @Drapetomaniac
    , @dahoit
  9. Kiza says:

    Yes, the Swedes just need to consider the Assange case to know everything they need to know. Assange’s is a true issue of human rights, not some invented narrative of NATO countries.

    But, this article screams to me: “FALSE FLAG!”. The 80’s game of NATO submarines playing Russian submarines is only a warm up. Expect another false flag just like MH17 within the next couple of years, the Western interventionists will not stop just at a little bit of underwater scare.

    Just imagine all the zillions of dollars that will go to the military-industrial of Sweden and NATO countries! The Western interventionists are manufacturing an enemy out of peace and trade oriented Russia+China, to live happily ever after, like pigs in clover.

  10. Pacific says:

    ahhh all for Greater Israel !!!!

  11. @Kiza

    It’s a pretty crappy false flag when the amateurs figure out the age of he sub before the central government.

  12. @Andrei Martyanov

    I have no understanding of the personnel schedules on zrussian/Soviet subs. I could look, but because it’s not my interest, I honestly don’t know where to find the reliable literature on it. Have any good recommendations?

  13. @Art

    “Trump – an American for America.”

    Certainly, another liar that the sheeple can fall for.

    Fool me once, shame on you, fool me a hundred times, I’m an American voter.

    • Replies: @Art
  14. Art says:

    Perfect is the enemy of good.

    Is Trump perfect – absolutely not – but he is better.

  15. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:

    I humbly agree.

  16. dahoit says:
    @Sojourner Truth

    Yes,a travesty of justice and politically inspired by the Ziomonsters.Those who wish their depredations remain hidden,so the world will blame US,instead of our master,Zion.

  17. dahoit says:

    Trump is another American idiot,but at least he recognizes some truths,re illegal immigration and McCain.

  18. dahoit says:

    And how is Crimea a European issue?The Crimean War?Its none of their business,only the stupid Ukrainians and Russia’s.They’d still control it if they didn’t follow interloping idiot instructions.Morons.

    • Replies: @HA
  19. HA says:

    “And how is Crimea a European issue?”

    It’s certainly a US/UK issue. When the USSR was being dissolved, Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes in exchange for an territorial integrity assurances from Russia. Both the US and UK were both signatories to that agreement.

    If those nukes were still in Ukraine, I’d wager the whole affair would have played out differently, and in that case, any heated relations between two neighboring nuclear powers would most definitely be a European issue as well. To the extent that Ukraine removed that one headache by giving up its nukes in exchange for security guarantees, I can understand why they feel that the US and UK ought to back their signatures with something more than shrugged shoulders.

    • Replies: @Avery
  20. Avery says:

    Agreements, schmeegrments.

    When Gorbachev agreed to withdraw Soviet troops from Eastern Europe without bloodshed, Pres Reagan, meaning US, meaning the West/NATO , promised not to expand NATO eastward.
    Which part of their agreement did the Neocon West keep that Russia should feel obligated to honor any promise to liars.

    NATO Neocons have been creeping towards Russia since 1991.
    Neocons even planted an agent in Republic of Georgia, Saakashvili, and attempted to bring in Georgia into NATO also. Georgia is right next to Russia.

    As to Ukraine having kept its nukes: when both countries have nukes, the one that has an order of magnitude more wins hands down.
    US has cowed nuclear Pakistan like nothing.
    US pisses on them, and there is nothing Paks can do.

    Nothing would change if Ukraine had nukes.
    Crimea would re-join, that is re-join, Russia sooner or later.
    Crimea had been under Russia for centuries.
    Khrushchev “gave” the Crimea Autonomous Republic to Ukraine SSR without asking the majority ethnic Russian population of Crimea.
    In fact Crimea ran an independence referendum in 1991: it passed 94%.
    Kiev ignored them.

    Neo-Nazi Necons need to get their snouts out the affairs of others and mind their own business.
    Russians remember what Nazis did to them.
    They will go the distance – all the way – to stop Nazi progeny from threatening Russia ever again.

    • Replies: @HA
  21. HA says:

    “When Gorbachev agreed to withdraw Soviet troops from Eastern Europe without bloodshed, Pres Reagan, meaning US, meaning the West/NATO , promised not to expand NATO eastward.”

    Where and when did Reagan promise not to expand NATO eastward and how long was this agreement supposed to remain in force? According to what I can look up, NATO wasn’t expanded until 1999, some years after the USSR went out of existence, but I’m guessing you would have us believe this agreement was supposed to remain in force well after the existence of its counterparties.

    And anyway, as we all know, agreements between the US and USSR were negotiated with a good deal of back-and-forth, down to the last iota, as in the case of the SALT. That being the case, surely you or someone else can find me clear evidence specifying the exact dates, signatures, and terms of this very momentous document, given that it cemented NATO’s Eastern boundaries in perpetuity. Would you like to give it a try? Please make sure you can answer all the questions I raised, or tell me how any of them strike you as unreasonable. Maybe it would be a little more persuasive than “agreements, schmeegrments”, though, come to think of it, I’m guessing already tells us everything we need to know about how you think.

    And by the way, when did Reagan get appointed as king of NATO? Did anyone even bother to include any NATO signatures in this document?

    I could similarly dismember the rest of what you ranted on about, but I think that will do for now.

    • Replies: @Avery
    , @Avery
  22. Avery says:

    [ NATO’s Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?]
    [ Newly discovered documents from Western archives support the Russian position.]

    {Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has accused the West of breaking promises made after the fall of the Iron Curtain, saying that NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe violated commitments made during the negotiations over German reunification. Newly discovered documents from Western archives support the Russian position.}

    {After speaking with many of those involved and examining previously classified British and German documents in detail, SPIEGEL has concluded that there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question for countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia.}

    {On Feb. 10, 1990, between 4 and 6:30 p.m., Genscher spoke with Shevardnadze. According to the German record of the conversation, which was only recently declassified, Genscher said: “We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east.” And because the conversion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: “As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general.”}

    {“I wanted to help them over the hurdle,” Genscher told SPIEGEL. To that end, the German foreign minister promised, in his speech in Tutzing, that there would not be “an expansion of NATO territory to the east, in other words, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union.”}

    {US Secretary of State James Baker, a pragmatic Texan, apparently “warmed to the proposal immediately,” says Elbe today. On Feb. 2, the two diplomats sat down in front of the fireplace in Baker’s study in Washington, took off their jackets, put their feet up and discussed world events. They quickly agreed that there was to be no NATO expansion to the East. “It was completely clear,” Elbe comments.}

    {What the US secretary of state said on Feb. 9, 1990 in the magnificent St. Catherine’s Hall at the Kremlin is beyond dispute. There would be, in Baker’s words, “no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east,” provided the Soviets agreed to the NATO membership of a unified Germany. Moscow would think about it, Gorbachev said, but added: “any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable.”}

    Gorbachev was an idiot to believe the Neocon lying snakes.
    But that’s a different opera.

    You can read the rest of the article yourself.
    btw: in case you get confused; Spiegel is a respected German news site.
    And yes, Germany is a NATO member.

    So keep ranting
    As of now, you have not, quote, “dismembered”, anything other than yourself.
    (did it hurt ?)
    Try again.
    You might succeed some day, if you really, really try.
    Put your Neocon heart and soul into it.

    • Replies: @HA
  23. HA says:

    Oh, so it was Baker and Genscher, not Reagan, negotiating the reunification of Germany. Any other things you want to shift around while you’re at it?

    In particular, I see you omitted any mention of how long this agreement was supposed to last. Huh. That’s kind of crucial, I would think. But if this is the best you can do, well, let’s take a closer look at that article you linked to:

    When the two colleagues discussed Poland, Genscher said, according to the British records, that if Poland ever left the Warsaw Pact, Moscow would need the certainty that Warsaw would “not join NATO the next day.” However, Genscher did not seem to rule out accession at a later date.

    Note the parts I highlighted, which indicate that Genscher thought Gorbachev wanted to make sure there would be no sudden changes after Germany reunified. It doesn’t say anything about some permanent shift to NATO lasting forever. Given that NATO didn’t expand until years later, when the Soviet Union no longer existed, and after its members went to the trouble of involving Gorbachev in the expansion (giving him all sorts of economic incentives in the bargain), you still want to claim that agreement was violated in some way?

    Come on — you’ll need to do better than that.

    And again, I’ll ask you: Where are the NATO signatures in this agreement? Doesn’t it seem suspiciously generous of France and the UK and Denmark, etc. — none of whom were all that eager to see Germany reunified in the first place –that they would agree to bargain away the permanent future of NATO’s boundaries for something they did not especially want in the first place? Does that make any sense to you?

    Baker and Genscher could certainly deliver on a promise to advocate against changing NATO immediately (since unanimous agreement among its members is a prerequisite for adding members), and apparently they did that, but promising to fix NATO’s boundaries permanently even once their respective administrations were voted out of office — all without a single document or set of signatures (NATO included) to show for it?

    Dream on.

    • Replies: @Avery
  24. Avery says:

    {“…..but I’m guessing you would have us believe this agreement was supposed to remain in force well after the existence of its counterparties.”}

    Russia is the legal successor state to former USSR.
    Agreements made with USSR were therefore in force.
    Whether USSR exists now or not.
    Do you know why Russia inherited the Permanent Security Council seat previously held by USSR ?
    You guessed right: very good.

    {“….given that it cemented NATO’s Eastern boundaries in perpetuity.”}

    If an agreement can be abrogated by the West because it is not supposed to be in “perpetuity”, then Russia can abrogate whatever it allegedly agreed to with parties which broke their agreements to Russia, the legal successor state to USSR.

    • Replies: @HA
  25. HA says:

    “If an agreement can be abrogated by the West because it is not supposed to be in “perpetuity…”

    Still dodging, I see. You’re the one claiming the agreement was supposed to be permanent. I’m just trying to figure out why you would think that, given the circumstances. The quote I helpfully provided — from your own link, I will remind you — noted that the negotiations in question were concerned with what would happen to NATO in the immediate aftermath of German reunification. If you feel I am in error about that, please provide some document or agreement stating otherwise, or kindly explain the conveniently highlighted portions of that quote I cut and pasted for you.

    And I will ask you a third time, now: Where are the NATO signatures on this agreement? Saying that Genscher is from Germany, and that Germany is a member of NATO is not going to fool anyone with a high school education who knows how NATO works. No one elected Genscher (or Baker or Reagan) to be king of NATO, and no one delegated to them the authority to permanently change NATO’s boundaries without a single document or set of signatures to show for it. We all know that — you think Gorbachev didn’t, or else somehow forgot?

    If you can’t answer any of that, and if, on the contrary, you’re just going to squirm and dodge, what’s the point? We already know you can’t be bothered to abide by your agreements — that “agreements, schmeegrments” crack exposed a little too much, I think. Though in fairness, that seems to have been by far your most honest admission in this whole thread. Maybe you should have left it at that.

    • Replies: @5371
    , @annamaria
    , @Avery
  26. 5371 says:

    So you’ve crawled out of the woodwork again, you dishonest rat? Did they recommence payment of your stipend ?

  27. “They’d still control it if they didn’t follow interloping idiot instructions.Morons.”

    Poor silly Ukrainians, thinking they have a say in how they govern their Russian vassal state….

  28. annamaria says:

    Interesting logic, Russia must be pure and true like a proverbial Caesar’s wife, always, but the U.S. should be always excused for their consistent trashing of international laws.
    Moreover, you have been strenuously trying to convince the readers that NATO is a totally separate entity from the U.S. This is certainly your right to believe in that independence – in contradiction to all obvious and covert evidences. For instance: the U.S. finances over 75% of NATO expenditures and NATO is subservient to the U.S. diktat.

    • Replies: @HA
  29. HA says:

    “Interesting logic, Russia must be pure and true like a proverbial Caesar’s wife,…”


    Next time, try responding to something I actually said. Likewise, as for NATO, no one said it’s “a totally separate entity”. But if you think the US was able to permanently entrench the boundaries of NATO in exchange for something that no other member save for Germany had any interest in, all without a single document to show for it, then give it a rest. Maybe that’s the way it works in Russia (in which case, it explains a lot about how the pro-Putin crowd looks at the world), but even if you want to believe that NATO is nothing but an elaborate kabuki ritual whose only purpose is to arrange Europe however the US wants, there are still steps in that ritual that need to be taken. The fact that nothing like that happened here blows the not-one-inch-to-the-East-ever theory out of the water.

    But I get it: if you can’t answer my actual questions, I suppose the old fall-back of setting up straw men, not to mention hurling “neocon” and other slurs around, is really all you can do. If that is the approach here, fine, but don’t think others won’t be able to see through it.

  30. Kiza says:

    I really think you ought stop engaging this troll. He keeps twisting the logic just like the Western criminals who own him. It is exactly the same argument, over and over: international laws and agreements apply to you, but they do not apply to us if we later decide that they are not in our best interest.

    This is such a warn out refrain but always delivered with maximum chutzpah.

    Do not look only at USSR, look at how they just signed an agreement with Iran, the ink has not dried yet, but they are already breaking it: the agreement is most explicit that the International Atomic Energy Agency, a UN body, must not share information about the Iranian military and nuclear facilities with any country, but this is exactly what this UN agency and the US Government are doing. This is just as they did with Iraq in the years before the attack. The UN and OSCE inspection agencies are chock-a-block full of NATO spies. The West signs agreements only to gain advantage for future aggression, for the purpose of perfect information from the ground. Signing agreements with the West is like legalizing spying on yourself. Then, endlessly repeated Western PR rhetoric substitutes reality.

  31. Avery says:

    {“Oh, so it was Baker and Genscher, not Reagan, negotiating the reunification of Germany. Any other things you want to shift around while you’re at it?”}

    Are you really that disconnected from the real world or are you that desperate to escape the massive hole of illogic you have dug yourself into ?

    Reagan was POTUS.
    Baker was Chief of Staff in the Reagan Administration, while he was negotiating the reunification of Germany.
    Whatever Baker was doing, he was implementing the policy of his boss, President Reagan.
    He was representing President Reagan.

    People in US Government negotiate on behalf of the United States of America.
    Your above sentence clearly shows you lack of basic understanding of what FMs, Chiefs of Staff, Sect States, etc do: they are not private individuals.
    Therefore you are in no position to engage in discussion about what USSR was officially promised by official representatives of several Western governments re German unification, NATO expansion, etc.

  32. Avery says:

    {“…And I will ask you a third time, …”}

    You can ask me in perpetuity, or until you are blue in the face, whichever comes first: did you and I sign an agreement _obligating_ me to answer _any_ of your questions ?

    Who are you to demand answers from me?
    I can write whatever I want: you don’t like it, too bad.
    I can comment, or not comment, on any post, any sentence, or a word in a post.
    As I please.
    The only party that has a say in what I post @UNZ is the moderator.

    You don’t like my comments, don’t read them: skip over to the next.
    And don’t demand anything.

  33. HA says:

    “…Reagan was POTUS….Baker… was representing President Reagan….”

    Really? Well, thank you for that. Therefore, given that neither Reagan nor Baker (nor Genscher) was the king of NATO at the time — or I assume you would have noted that as well — we can at least agree with some finality that no NATO official was involved in these negotiations (and, I might add, your curiously defensive thee-time refusal to answer that point directly is added confirmation).

    So in summary, your argument is based on the assumption that the negotiations in question were about fixing the boundaries of NATO forever, all in exchange for the reunification of Germany (something that France and the UK and Denmark and most of the rest of NATO had no real interest in to begin with), and all without the participation of a single NATO official, and all without a single document or signature to show for it.

    In other words, absurdity upon absurdity. Thank you for making that so very obvious, but I think we’ve put enough time into this, given that you should have figured all that out yourself before bringing it up, not to mention citing an article which you apparently never even bothered to read all the way through.

    • Replies: @Avery
  34. Avery says:

    {“Really? Well, thank you for that. “}

    Yes, Really.
    And you are very welcome.

    • Replies: @Cliff Arroyo
  35. @Avery


    You really think that Reagan was president in 1990?

  36. @Art

    Cliché time, eh?

    A teeny teeny possibility of being a teeny teeny bit better than evil is still evil.

    And where did I mention anything about perfect?

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 Israel Shamir Comments via RSS