Jack F. Matlock | Ambassador to the Soviet Union, 1987-1991

well he's sharp enough to lie without even batting an eye on the consequences of what he says

And imagine him on his peak...

@@gergelyelod holy shit. He would make a great politician at his peak. Imagine someone who can full thousands of people rn spewing the most incoherent lies at his peak

his integrity goes in shambles when you do some reaserch. Gorbachev said it himself that there was no talk about NATO expansion to the east at that time because the countries to the east were either part of Warsaw pact or part of the soviet union. The closest thing to being true in what he said would be no troops in east germany and that was kept. Nato hasnt broke any agreement

@@rajder656 You need to look deeper of what James Baker said to the Russians.

@@tashalorm4313 this is from Gorbachev himself in an interview from 2014 "M.G.: The topic of “NATO expansion” was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a singe Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn’t bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it. Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled. The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been observed all these years. So don’t portray Gorbachev and the then-Soviet authorities as naïve people who were wrapped around the West’s finger. If there was naïveté, it was later, when the issue arose. Russia at first did not object" Again your all mighty Matlock is referring to are times where there was no east to expand to. Because to the east were countries that were part of the warsaw pact and soviet Union.

his integrity goes in shambles when you do some reaserch. Gorbachev said it himself that there was no talk about NATO expansion to the east at that time because the countries to the east were either part of Warsaw pact or part of the soviet union. The closest thing to being true in what he said would be no troops in east germany and that was kept. Nato hasnt broke any agreement

and a great liar too

Good question.? This is a question journalist should ask NATO leadership or they politicians who decide to joined NATO . Few years ago US Congress were complaining that US spend more money in NATO than other members countries and they put pressure on other NATO countries to invest more money to NATO budget . US spend trillions in last decades in war's in Middle east . So ,my conclusion is they need a money and more countries joined NATO mean more money . Plus NATO is supporting Ukrainian Ultra nationalist militia AZOV Battalion with money , training and weapons . US 2016 Consolidated act included section '' UKRAINE SECURITY '' 250 millions was spend on training and weapons for Ukraine , additionally 658 million on '' bilateral economic assistance ' followed by 760 million '' security and programmatic '' plus 2 billion loan . They say '' follow the money '' and you will come to a conclusion what is US and NATO agenda in Ukraine . Eventually they made a amendment according to which non of the money should be spend on military training or weapons in Ukraine when connection toAZOV battalion become public .

@@cheguevara5560 do you know what AZOV battalion is and it's numbers? Do you know what happened pre 2016 in ukraine? And fun fact Ukraine was part of a pact between quite a few coutries where they gave up nukes and russia amongst others promised not to invade them. But then in 2014 they invaded Krimea. No more countries joining NATO doesn't mean more money especially for the US because the reason why US spent so much on NATO was because a lot of countries payed less than they were supposed to. And props on US for helping out the small guy

@@rajder656 It seems so that you don't know what happend in Ukraine before 2016 yourself. Also, you're blaming Russia for acting against an anti-Russian government that rose to power after the revolution of 2013-2014. US would do the same thing if they had such a country near their borders, like they tried to do with Cuba during the Cold War - and Cuba is under heavy sanctions till this very day, mind you, although the first Cold War is long gone. US has been actually helping out Ukraine against eastern ukranian sepratists for 8 years before this war, that's going on right now. It seems to me that it's Russia who is helping out the small guy - that is, the Russian population of Crimea and Donbass, who had always voted AGAINST proWestern movements and governments, and had never wanted anything to do with the corrupt Ukranian oligarchy from Kiev and Western Ukraine. If it had not been for US's and NATO's expansion eastward, this war could have been avoided - you can't enlarge your sphere of influence without taking into account what other players, even smaller ones think of that.

@@UppedOne fun fact you know who is backing the seperatist forces in crimea and donbass? Russia. They give guns, they give money. And you think why they 2014 revolution happned? Why do you think a jewish man got 70% of votes when he was against russian agression? That anti russsian goverment wasn't really in place until 2019 really cause that was when zelensky became the president. And you know what else happened in 2014? Russia attacked crimea and then gave them an ultimatum "either you're with us or you're alone" because fun fact those were the only options they were able to vote. Either join russia or seperate from ukraine. I wonder why russia didnt want it to be part of ukraine? It couldn't have been the massive amount of natural gas that is in crimea. The NATOs expansion to the east is fair and it doesnt matter because nato isnt the reason russia attacked ukraine. They don't care about nato and they don't care about nazis. They care about money and you know what would happen in idk 5-10 years from now if russia didn't at least try to take over ukraine? Ukraine would make russia irrelevant in europe. One of biggest russian revenue sources is natural gas and guess who has 2nd highest amount of natural gass in europe? Ukraine. But please do tell what happened before 2016 because i a person from eastern europe need to be educated by 'Muricans

@@rajder656 I see no problem in Russia backing the separatists. Moreover, the majority of those people want to be in Russia, not in Ukraine. Ukranian government failed to provide for the interests of its former citizens, fired at them even before the active phase of war started and directly ignored the Minsk accords on numerous occasions. The revolution happened in 2014, because western ukranians didn't want proRussian government to be in power, and they didn't want this government to decline a trade deal with EU. These sentiments were largely supported by the US financially, by the way - them and europeans always support such movements, as it is favorable for their order, so, once again, I see no problem if Russia does the same thing. Anyway, back to the discussion: eastern Ukranians didn't want to live in a country with a government from Western Ukraine. Kiev never forgave them for that, and has been training its troops under foreign supervision to retake Donbass and Crimea later down the road. Now, to the Crimea matter. Do you see people there cheering to go back into Ukraine? When Russians don't like something, they go out protesting. Can't see that in Crimea at all. When the referendum happened, this variant of autonomy, that was put forward as an alternative to joining up with Russia, actually respected the original intentions of the Crimean government from 1992. There is more to say: Russia does care about NATO, and Russia has protested against its expansion for years, because, logically, it does not want a foreign military power in its own sphere of influence. Nobody listened to Russian opinion on the matter. I agree with you on the nazi part - the image of them that the Russian government uses serves to legitimize the war - every country has to legitimize their wars somehow ("In the name of democracy" and such stuff). That does not contradict the point that there are radical nationalists in Ukraine with degenerate inclanations. So, even if NATO and EU are purely benevolent (which I don't believe at all - they've conducted numerous invasions with war crimes happening as one of the consequences), their actions towards Russia produced deep mistrust in the Russian government, which has come to see their stance as threatening. I think, europeans, ukranians and americans could have seen this coming, but, obviously, are taking up the risk of having a direct confrontation with the major regional power. And if they didn't really foresee this, then they come off as shortsighted and naive. Doesn't sound right to me, though.

his integrity goes in shambles when you do some reaserch. Gorbachev said it himself that there was no talk about NATO expansion to the east at that time because the countries to the east were either part of Warsaw pact or part of the soviet union. The closest thing to being true in what he said would be no troops in east germany and that was kept. Nato hasnt broke any agreement

@@rajder656 It was not signed. But if Nato thinks it is a good idea to surround the second largest nuclear potential nation which has also a lot of it on submarines they are playing with fire. It wasnt the russians that cancelled the ABM treaties, that was the USA. I mean yes of course we all can point our fingers at them if they push the button. But this finger pointing will be very short lived before we all turn to ashes. I dont know about you, but I would like to get my last 40 or so years before I wiil die. Yes the US may have something that can shoot down a ballistic missile and maybe even deployed warheads, but I wouldnt count on it. If this thing is as reliable as the "surgical" strikes that always seem to produce civil casualties.

@@rajder656 What is really sad is that the ukrainian people have to suffer for what is basically a power struggle between the USA and Russia. USA wants Ukraine in NATO and would like to install ABM Shield there - Russia does nt want US missiles in Ukraine. So Russia attacks Ukraine cause they cant fight the USA since you are located on a different continent. I really am coming to think if the western european countries could change our homelands with the americans, they could experience some of their own medicine for a change, you know all those glorious civil casualties and destroyed buildings would make a president look really good in the next elections and maybe the USA would learn not to act like cowboys all the time.

@@arnepietruszewski9255 no no no no. Ukraine wants to join the NATO because Russia for years was a threat to them. Do you even know anything about eastern european politics? I mean russian russia went and put a puppet president there. It's not the US fault that Putin wants the good ol soviet union back. You cannot just look at anything with US involvement and say "yeah its the US fault". America ain't perfect but they aren't the culprit here. A lot of east european want to have the safety net of NATO

Really? He sounds like he is about to die at any moment.

"Jack" is the US ambassador at the times of this promise was made. He just claims it was actually a thing, and is credible to do so

You are right. Those without integrity can do whatever they want, even with a written agreement. So here we are in the midst of a war that is highly dangerous for everyone.

@@thenorman7081 well then Gorbachev is lying because there were no talks or agreements about it

@Pawwel Mussial then Gorbachev lied because he specifially said there were no talks about it

@@jankragt7789 Russia also promised to not invade ukraine after they gave up nukes