The United States Always Knew NATO Expansion Would Lead to War

The present severed from the past is easily misunderstood. In discussions of the Russia-Ukraine war, not enough is made of the historical fact that, at the end of the Cold War, the newly independent Ukraine promised not to join NATO, and NATO promised not to expand to Ukraine.

Not enough is made of the fact that Article IX of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, “External and Internal Security,” says that Ukraine “solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs…” That promise was later enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution, which committed Ukraine to neutrality and prohibited it from joining any military alliance; that included NATO.

Nor is enough made of the fact that in 1990 and 1991, the George H.W. Bush administration gave assurances to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev—assurances that arguably reached the level of a deal—that NATO would not expand east of Germany, including to Ukraine.

But even less is made of what the Bill Clinton administration later promised Russian President Boris Yeltsin, nor what the United States already knew at the time of where plans of NATO expansion to Ukraine would lead.

Recently declassified documents clearly show that, between 1993 and 2000, the U.S. already knew that a cornered Boris Yeltsin was distraught about NATO expansion and about the West’s broken promise, that expansion to Ukraine was a red line, and that if Russia ever enforced that red line, the U.S. would respond forcefully.

Though the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland were invited to begin accession talks in 1997 and joined NATO in 1999, a secret October 1994 policy paper, written by National Security Advisor Anthony Lake and entitled “Moving Toward NATO Expansion,” makes it clear that the decision to expand NATO had already been made by that time. The paper explicitly keeps “the membership door open for Ukraine.”

Interestingly, though Russia is always publicly painted as a predatorial nation with imperial ambitions, a confidential 1993 cable states that most Eastern European states seek NATO membership “not [because they] feel militarily threatened by Russia” but because they believe “that NATO membership can help stave off the return of authoritarian forces” in their own countries. Though the cable makes the exception that Ukraine and the Baltic states may feel threatened by Russia.

By September 1994, Clinton had explicitly told Yeltsin that NATO would expand. While visiting Yeltsin in the hospital on December 16, 1994, Vice President Al Gore clarifies that “What Clinton told you in September was that eventually NATO will expand.”

But Gore promised Yeltsin that “the process will be gradual and open and we will consult carefully with you.” He added, “The process will be conducted in parallel with a deepening of the U.S.-Russia partnership and your partnership with NATO.”

Though less than a week later, a secret NSC memorandum clarifies that Russia will not be given “a veto or right of prior consultation over NATO decisions,” this promise of a deepening “institutionalized relationship between NATO and Russia—possibly in the form of a Treaty (“alliance with the Alliance”) or Charter” that will be established in parallel with NATO expansion is repeatedly mentioned. A secret memorandum written by Anthony Lake to Clinton on July 17, 1995 identifies “plans to develop a formalized NATO-Russia relationship in parallel with enlargement.” The spirit of this promise would be broken.

Importantly, it is evident that the Clinton administration was very aware of Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion and of their feeling of betrayal. Knowing that expansion is an impossible sell in Russia, Gore promised Yeltsin that expansion wouldn’t occur before 1996 because “[w]e understand you have parliamentary elections in mid-1995 and it would be hard for you if we moved forward then.”

Keep reading

Zelensky Calls for NATO Troops in Ukraine at Last Ramstein Rally Before Trump Return

The Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which is essentially ‘NATO and Friends,’ convened at Ramstein Air Base on Thursday for its final meeting before Trump returns to the White House.

Zelensky used his speech to call for NATO to deploy troops to Ukraine, claiming it would “force Russia to peace,” when he and everyone else knows it would only serve to bring us to World War 3.

Glenn Diesen, a geopolitical analyst and professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway, noted that while Trump’s talk of wanting to pursue peace in Ukraine is a step forward, he’s in for a wake-up call if he expects Russia to accept a deal that doesn’t address Putin’s long list of security concerns for the region.

Keep reading

US Always Knew NATO Expansion Led to War

The present severed from the past is easily misunderstood. In discussions of the Russia-Ukraine war, not enough is made of the historical facts that, at the end of the Cold War, the newly independent Ukraine promised not to join NATO, and NATO promised not to expand to Ukraine.

Not enough is made of the fact that Article IX  of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, “External and Internal Security,” says that Ukraine “solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs….” That promise was later enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution, which committed Ukraine to neutrality and prohibited it from joining any military alliance: that included NATO.

Nor is enough made of the fact that in 1990 and 1991, the Bush administration gave assurances to Gorbachev – assurances that arguably reached the level of a deal – that NATO would not expand east of Germany, including to Ukraine.

But even less is made of what the Clinton administration later promised Yeltsin nor of what the U.S. already knew at the time of where plans of NATO expansion to Ukraine would lead.

Recently declassified documents clearly show that, between 1993 and 2000, the U.S. already knew that a cornered Boris Yeltsin was distraught about NATO expansion and about the West’s broken promise, that expansion to Ukraine was a red line, and that if Russia ever enforced that red line, the U.S. would respond forcefully.

Though Czechia, Hungary and Poland were invited to begin accession talks in 1997 and joined NATO in 1999, a secret October 1994 policy paper, written by National Security Advisor Anthony Lake and entitled “Moving Toward NATO Expansion,” makes it clear that the decision to expand NATO had already been made by that time. The paper explicitly keeps “the membership door open for Ukraine.”

Interestingly, though Russia is always publicly painted as a predatorial nation with imperial ambitions, a confidential 1993 cable states that most Eastern European states seek NATO membership “not [because they] feel militarily threatened by Russia” but because they believe “that NATO membership can help stave off the return of authoritarian forces” in their own countries. Though the cable makes the exception that Ukraine and the Baltic states may feel threatened by Russia.

Keep reading

NATO State Seeking More Cemetery Space for Potential Future War Casualties

Funeral associations in Sweden are looking to secure enough land to bury thousands of people in the event of a war, the Associated Press has reported. The Nordic country joined NATO earlier this year, amid the US-led military bloc’s growing involvement in the Ukraine conflict.

The burial association in Sweden’s second-largest city, Gothenburg, is trying to acquire additional land to ensure casket sites for some 30,000 dead, on top of what is needed for graveyards for regular use, AP wrote on Saturday.

Swedish media outlets reported earlier this month that the authorities were bracing for up to half a million potential fatalities if the country were to enter a full-scale war.

In big cities… land resources are scarce to begin with and not always sufficient to meet burial ground needs even in times of calm and peace,” AP quoted Katarina Evenseth, senior advisor at the Goteborg Burial Association, as saying.

In October, the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) released updated civil preparedness guides with instructions on how to survive during an armed conflict. The brochure, dubbed “In case of crisis or war,” contains advice on evacuation, how to stop bleeding, and other recommendations.

“The national security situation has changed drastically, and we all need to strengthen our resilience to various crises and, ultimately, war,” MSB Director General Mikael Frisell said in a statement last month.

Stockholm dropped decades of military non-alliance and joined NATO in March, amid the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The US-led bloc has been supporting Kiev by providing military aid, and in November, Washington authorized strikes using its missiles deep inside Russian territory. France has also suggested that Ukraine should be allowed to fire its missiles into Russia in self-defense, and Moscow has claimed that British-supplied Storm Shadows have already been used in such strikes.

Moscow has reiterated that the move makes NATO a direct party to the conflict.

According to critics of Stockholm’s accession to NATO, Sweden has become a potential target in the event of a war.

Keep reading

THE CABAL MOVES: Secretive Bilderberg Group Taps Former NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg as New Chair of the ‘Steering Committee’

The secretive Bilderberg Group has a new co-chair of its ‘Steering Committee’, in the figure of the former Norwegian Prime Minister and former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

The Bilderberg is one of the most mysterious, and therefore most mythologized elite groups on the Planet.

The Conspiracy Theories involving the group are numerous: to begin with, it is said that it works towards establishing a ‘New World Order’, representing a danger to national sovereignty and democracy.

It is also said that the group is a ‘global kingmaker.’

It is indeed a historical fact that one of its founders, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, was directly linked to the Nazi party, which would explain the group’s inclination towards authoritarian control.

There are also assertions that the Bilderberg instigated major global events, from wars to economic crises, all to serve their agenda.

And the list would not be complete without the lore popularized by David Icke, claiming that the Bilderberg members are of a reptilian race that interbred with humans to control planetary events.

Keep reading

Putin Reveals Biden Offered To Postpone Ukraine’s NATO Entry As Compromise 

Russian President Vladimir Putin fielded questions from journalists Thursday at the conclusion of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council meeting held outside St. Petersburg. The Russian-led EEU economic bloc includes member states Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

Among the more interesting moments was when Putin revealed what President Biden previously offered him in order to avert the Ukraine conflict, regarding the question of Kiev’s NATO membership.

The comments came in the context of a question over Trump’s reported peace plan and the idea of freezing the front lines. Putin described that such a plan is nothing new, and added the following per state media translation:

“I know that the current President Biden spoke about this, it’s no secret, back in 2021. He proposed exactly this to me – to delay Ukraine’s admission into NATO by 10-15 years, because [Kiev] is not ready yet,” Putin said, referring to the midsummer meeting he had with the US leader in Switzerland.

Keep reading

NATO arms Poland more than Ukraine in preparation for potential war with Russia

The massive transfer of NATO military equipment to Poland testifies to the West’s possible preparations for a direct war with Russia. Weapons and equipment arriving in Poland in such quantities, as if we are currently on the eve of a major war, lead to a dangerous escalation.

NATO is massively transferring military equipment from European countries to Poland, arming the country much more heavily than it armed the Ukrainians on the eve of the Russian special military operation. This is part of the Atlantic Alliance’s efforts to pressure and isolate Russia in Eastern Europe.

The grouping of NATO forces on the borders of Russia and Belarus has been a systematic effort for years. With such actions, NATO, in the interim, wants to tie up as many Russian and Belarusian forces as possible on the borders, while in the near future, Poland is intended to be a staging point in case of any hot war with Russia.

The exclave region of Kaliningrad, which has no land border with Russia proper but borders NATO countries Lithuania and Poland and has access to the Baltic Sea, is particularly at risk. Responding to this NATO threat, Russia and Belarus have increased their military group deployed along the borders of Poland and Lithuania.

Russian tactical nuclear weapons have also been deployed in significant quantities in Belarus. The goal of deploying nuclear weapons is to show that Russia and Belarus are capable of causing irreparable damage to NATO, essentially meaning it is for deterrence. Therefore, if NATO is ready to risk a nuclear war, then it will not be Russia’s choice, which will only be left with the choice to respond.

Moscow recently updated its nuclear military doctrine, according to which Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against it using conventional weapons – if this poses a threat to the vital interests of the state. Under the updated doctrine, Moscow also reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Russia and Belarus as a member of the Federal State.

Keep reading

Putin And Defense Minister Belousov – Russia Is Preparing For War

For the first time, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Andrei Belousov have publicly stated Russia is likely to go to war with NATO in the next decade.

Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Andrei Belousov delivered their end-of-year report to a giant defense ministry conference on Monday, hailing the state of affairs at the front and in the rear. They talked about the latest successes in the Ukraine invasion, the increase in military spending and Russia’s preparations for conflict with NATO.

2024 was “a landmark year for achieving the goals” of the war in Ukraine, Putin stated, saying the Russian army had captured 189 settlements since January. According to Belousov, Ukrainian forces retain control of under 1% of the territory of the self-styled Luhansk People’s Republic, and 25-30% of the Donetsk People’s Republic, and the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Regions — all parts of Ukraine that Russia claims to have annexed, reported Russian independent news outlet The Bell.

According to Putin, the breakthrough on the front came thanks to people voluntarily signing up to fight. Some 430,000 soldiers have been recruited so far this year, compared with 300,000 in 2023. Amid massive bonuses and salaries, more than 1,000 people are signing up to join the army every day.

Putin announced that the hypersonic Oreshnik intermediate-range missile system would go into serial production in the near future, despite having said at a meeting with Russia’s allies on Nov. 28 that it was already in full swing. And in the third quarter of 2025, Russia should have its own new specialized drone unit, mirroring a decision made by Ukraine back at the start of the year. 

Both Putin and Belousov also spoke of the prospect of direct conflict with the West. Putin complained that Russia was “being pushed to our red lines” while Belousov said that preparations for a conflict with NATO “in the next decade” were part of the defense ministry’s tasks and blamed NATO statements at its recent July summit for the increased threat. At the summit the military alliance’s final declaration described Russia as “the most significant and direct threat” to its members, which requires the strengthening and modernizing of its nuclear potential.

Keep reading

NATO State Warns Against Western Troops In Ukraine: “Discussion Has Gone Off The Rails”

One of NATO’s two newest members, Finland, is urging caution as some European leaders are considering a negotiated end to the Ukraine war which would involve sending Western peacekeeping forces. The incoming Trump administration is reportedly keen on the idea.

President of Finland Alexander Stubb issued a warning Tuesday before a defense cooperation summit in Tallinn, saying “We should not get ahead of ourselves” on the issue of a future peacekeeping mission, cited in Finnish outlet Yle.

His main criticism focused on the huge numbers of European troops that such a mission would require. “The operation cannot be launched on a shaky foundation,” he continued, explaining that an adequate peacekeeping force would have to have at least 150,000 soldiers on the ground.

“In rotation, that means three times that, or 450,000 peacekeepers per yearSo perhaps this discussion has gone off the rails, so to speak,” he emphasized.

Stubb offered that instead of peacekeeping forces, Kiev should have security guarantees, and that should be the central driver of the discussion over future peace negotiations.

The past several months have seen leading NATO countries revive the idea of sending Western troops to Ukraine. Whether in a ‘peacekeeping’ capacity or not, the Kremlin would see this as a massive escalation and has threatened war with the west.

Putin has made it clear that Russia will not tolerate NATO regular forces right on its border. Already this week Putin has said the West is going ‘beyond’ Russia’s stated red lines.

As the Biden administration has scrambled to try and build Kiev’s leverage on the battlefield prior to the Trump administration taking office, it recently greenlighted long-range missile attacks using ATACMS systems on Russia. 

Moscow has frequently said it is open to peace negotiations with Ukraine, but at this point is very unlikely to sign off on any plan which would see a European troop large deployment in any capacity.

Keep reading

European ‘peacekeepers’ in Ukraine? A horrible idea.

President-elect Trump is reportedly advancing the idea that a large and heavily armed peacekeeping force from Europe (but including NATO members) could be introduced into Ukraine as part of a peace settlement there. It is important that this very ill-thought-out idea be shot down before it does serious damage to the prospects for an early peace and causes Ukraine still further human, economic and territorial loss.

According to the Wall Street Journal and Le Monde, this idea first emerged in private talks between French and British officials in November. It was discussed on Thursday by NATO foreign ministers in Brussels. Trump made the suggestion to French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at a meeting in Paris on December 7.

Macron then traveled to Warsaw to discuss a plan for 40,000 heavily armed European “peacekeepers” with the Polish government whose officials, however, have so far given it a cool public response. In the words of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk: “To cut off speculation about the potential presence of this or that country in Ukraine after reaching a ceasefire, … decisions concerning Poland will be made in Warsaw and only in Warsaw. At the moment we’re not planning such activities.”

Friedrich Merz of the German Christian Democrats, almost certain to be chancellor after the elections due in February, has also distanced himself from the idea.

On the face of it, this idea might seem to reconcile several mutually contradictory pressures on the Ukrainian peace process: The Russian demand for a treaty that will permanently bar Ukraine from NATO membership; the Ukrainian demand for Western guarantees against future Russian aggression; Trump’s determination not to put U.S. troops on the ground or make additional and permanent U.S. commitments to Ukraine; and the real need for a substantial international force to patrol an armistice line.

There is just one problem: According to every Russian official and expert with whom my colleagues and I have spoken (most recently on Thursday), the idea of Western troops in Ukraine is just as unacceptable to the Russian government and establishment as NATO membership for Ukraine itself. Indeed, the Russians see no essential difference between the two.

Seen from Moscow, such a Western “peacekeeping force” would be simply a NATO advance guard that would provide cover for the gradual introduction of more and more NATO forces. Indeed, while President Zelensky has said that Ukraine “may consider” the idea of peacekeepers, it would only do so if it is also given a clear timeline for future NATO membership. If this proposal is put forward by General Kellogg, President-elect Trump’s choice as his Ukraine envoy, in negotiations, the Russian side will therefore reject it out of hand; and if it is insisted on, the talks will fail.

Keep reading