Rear Admiral Andrew Lennon, Nato submarine forces commander, provides the ‘evidence’ of Russian Revanchism! Old Socialist comments

Headline: Nato sounds alarm on Russian submarine activity

Sub-headline: Undersea operations highlight suspicion between Moscow and western alliance

Instead of the usual Financial Times New Cold War hysterics, this news story features  Rear Admiral Andrew Lennon, Nato submarine forces commander to provide the ‘evidence’ of Russian Revanchism.

Yet even New Cold War hack  dated May 30, 2016, titled ‘Russia’s got a point: The U.S. broke a NATO promise’ has to grudgingly admit the fact that the U.S. broke its promise to hold NATO to its 1990 members! In this case truth is not an ideological construct, although carefully framed in New Cold War rhetoric:

Moscow solidified its hold on Crimea in April, outlawing the Tatar legislature that had opposed Russia’s annexation of the region since 2014. Together with Russian military provocations against NATO forces in and around the Baltic, this move seems to validate the observations of Western analysts who argue that under Vladimir Putin, an increasingly aggressive Russia is determined to dominate its neighbors and menace Europe.

Mr. provides the historical facts in this paragraph:

In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.

But then, like the good policy pornai of the American Empire he follows this recounting of the facts with this imperial rationalization:

Nevertheless, great powers rarely tie their own hands. In internal memorandums and notes, U.S. policymakers soon realized that ruling out NATO’s expansion might not be in the best interests of the United States. By late February, Bush and his advisers had decided to leave the door open.

About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.