Detente Archives Prove NATO’s Broke Promises - Steve Cohen Calls Out "Suppression of Facts"
Declassified papers have been published at the National Security Archive on the campus of the George Washington University. They include transcripts of talks between Soviet and Western leaders. These transcripts prove that the United States, Great Britain, and France promised not to expand NATO eastwards. But they did not keep their word.
Dozens of documents have been declassified. The most important evidence allows us to look at the past from a different perspective while helping us understand what's behind today's conflicts. At the same time, the dossier debunks the established myths about an aggressive Russia. Apparently, that's why the largest US media organizations simply ignored the revelations.
Here are the direct quotes:
In 1990, talking to Gorbachev, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl said: "We believe that NATO should not expand its scope".
Here's another transcript: French President Francois Mitterrand assures that after Germany's reunification and retention of its membership in the alliance, the USSR will be provided with the necessary conditions for its security.
Margaret Thatcher (The Iron Lady) demonstrates the same flexible approach.
Here's Secretary of State James Baker's statement: "Not an inch of NATO's jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction." Baker gives an iron-clad guarantee: "There would, of course, have to be iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward. This would have to be done in a manner that would satisfy Germany's neighbors to the east".
"We publish everything that is worth being published" — is the motto of The New York Times. But these documents weren't.
In a radio interview, New York and Princeton Universities' Professor Stephen Cohen calls this a deliberate suppression of facts: "The New York Times is a gigantic organization where everyone is aware of the developments and where decisions are made every day on what exactly to publish, and every day the outlet publishes a lot of very dubious materials about Russia, about the events in Russia and the Russian interference scandal. A lot of data hasn't been confirmed. At the same time, it does not publish these documents of historical importance that are directly related to our new cold war today. The reason is that this does not correspond to the accepted concept that only the leader of Russia — Vladimir Putin is to blame for the new Cold War".
But everything that somehow contributes to the image of an aggressive Russia, which allegedly interferes in the affairs of dozens of countries, immediately goes into circulation. Here's a fresh piece of news cooked up in the "Russian interference" mass production oven. The Washington Post saw Russian businessman Alexei Repik among the public at the inauguration of Trump. The wealthy Russian was sitting so close, that, surely it must be suspicious. The editorial staff forgot to mention the fact that the businessman was at Obama's inauguration too. He did not hide his presence last year either. Moreover, he shared his impressions of the ceremony. We featured the extracts.
In total, The Washington Post counted as many as six Russians "with political ties" at the inauguration. More hints at collusion followed. The New York Times keeps pace with it, presenting an updated version of Russian interference. The newspaper picked up news headlines coming from McClatchy DC, using the headline: "FBI investigating whether Russian money went to the NRA to help Trump". At the same time, the amount allegedly found in this organization is not even clear.
Money transferred from the Russian Foreign Ministry to the Russian embassy in Washington caused another surge of suspicion at MSNBC. Hosts stressed that the transfer of $120,000 was allegedly addressed to Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, and that it was made 10 days after Trump was elected. Where's the connection? That's unclear. But this "piece of news" was thoroughly discussed at MSNBC. The alarm was raised even further by Kislyak's interview on 60 Minutes, one of our channel's programs.
"In my opinion, the Ambassador doesn't seem to like questions about his contacts".
Host: Could you tell us who else you met or spoke with by phone, so that we know who will go to prison, or to be questioned by Mueller next?
Sergei Kislyak: There are two issues with that. First, I will never do it, and second, the list is so long that I can’t do it in twenty minutes.
"The list will be so long… Of course, we don't take it at face value. He likes to interfere in America's affairs".
It is almost impossible to hear another point of view about Russia in the USA's airwaves and broadcasts. Moscow has even been blamed for American diplomats' hearing loss.
"A newly revealed incident reinforces the suspicion that Russia may be involved in mysterious attacks on American diplomats in Cuba".
It is about some acoustic attacks against the US embassies in Cuba and Uzbekistan. The State Department reported that American diplomats began to experience hearing loss, headaches, and nausea. "This looks like Russia's doing", unnamed sources told the American media. They figured that the diplomats were attacked there because Cuba and Uzbekistan are both friendly with Russia.
"It comes against the backdrop of rumors of Russia being possibly responsible for it".
The topic had been discussed for six months until the FBI announced that there was no evidence of any acoustic attacks. But of course, no one denied allegations about Moscow's involvement. Circulating rumors and conjectures—one after another, the US media are shaping the image of the enemy.
Presenting the National Defense Strategy, the head of the Pentagon, James Mattis explicitly stated whom the US sees as the main threat: "The competition between superpowers, not terrorism, is now the main focus of our national security. We face increasing threats from such revisionist states as China and Russia".
Professor Cohen describes the current Russian-American relations as a new cold war, the prerequisites for which were laid back in the 1990s when the agreements about the expansion of NATO were violated. The thesis of Western politicians that anyone has the right to join NATO is untenable, says the historian, because NATO is not the AARP, but a military and political bloc engaged in the security of entire countries and continents.
Stephen Cohen: "This new Cold War is more dangerous than the 40 years of the previous cold war, primarily because its political epicenter is not in Berlin, but directly on Russian borders, which could potentially provoke a real war. Also, after the Cuban Missile Crisis, two nuclear superpowers developed formal and informal rules of conduct. They drew red lines that could not be crossed, and it saved us all and prevented a nuclear war. Now there are no rules".
Furthermore, since the declassified documents on NATO's expansion have been published, it will be harder to deny the obvious. Meanwhile, a second set of papers on this important issue is being prepared at the National Security Archive.
Alexander Khristenko, Nikolai Koskin, and Elena Sokolova for Vesti News of the Week from the USA.