1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act is now "void" after Russia invaded Ukraine says NATO

Once again Putin's actions have created a situation Putin hoped to avoid. The 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act has been violated by Russia so the act is now null and void. Russia also violated the conventional forces Europe agreement. Starting with Russia's invasion of Georgia and the straw that broke the camels back was the Russian invasion of Ukraine. NATO did not take any action when Russia invaded Georgia. NATO did not take any action when Russia invaded Ukraine and seized Crimea. Putin went a bridge too far with the full invasion of Ukraine.


NATO Hints at Permanent Bases Near Russia Due to 'Unpredictable' Kremlin

NATO's Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoană said he expects that permanent NATO military bases will be implemented in Eastern Europe in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Speaking during the Copenhagen Democracy Summit, hosted by the Alliance for Democracies, Geoană suggested the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act is now "void" after the Kremlin began with their invasion of Ukraine and the military alliance is under no obligation to comply with it further.

The 1997 agreement was designed to build trust between Russia and NATO, as well as limit both sides' military presence in Eastern Europe.

Geoană said the alliance's leaders will be working on a "fundamental transformation of NATO's posture, presence and deterrence" on the eastern flank, including "more of a presence on the ground" during the NATO Summit in Madrid at the end of June.

"We are basically taking into account the fact that Russia is an aggressive, and unpredictable player. So yes, we'll be going to a new generation of our presence in the east. And I can say, as a Romanian, that now we can witness the full integration of the new allies into NATO also from a deterrence and defense perspective," he said.

When asked by former Danish Prime Minister and NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen at the Copenhagen event whether NATO leaders will now deviate from the 1997 agreement, including permanently stationing troops in Eastern Europe, Geoană replied: "I cannot judge what leaders will do, but I can anticipate that they will do exactly that."

Geoană said as part of the expected plans, NATO is working towards "state of the art, permanent" presence in Eastern Europe.

Geoană added that Russia also originally voided the 1997 agreement when Russian troops annexed the territory of Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.

A number of NATO figures had already called for permanent bases in Eastern Europe amid Russia's war in Ukraine.

click link for article...


* - Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008
* - Russia's invasion and occupation of Crimea
* - Russia's actions in E. Ukraine
* - Russian threats to use nuclear weapons against - Denmark, Romanian, Poland by Russian politicians and diplomats
* - Russia's constant propaganda that NATO is an enemy (also a violation of the founding act and the UN charter)
* - And the most recent announcement of re-establishment of the 1 st Guards Tank Army, the highly visible offensively-oriented formation that is openly against NATO, just draw the line under Russia's full and final rejection of its obligations under the Founding Act.

a reply to: Xcathdra

And prior to that in 1990, Russia was given explicit assurances that there would be no NATO expansion, and I quote, at the time, US Secretary of State James Baker;

NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”

Declassified

And also;

Baker’s words weren’t the only reassurances the Russians received. In 1990, then-West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher gave a keynote speech with regard to German reunification, during which he said:

[T]he changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’

But since then, this has been the "lets not expand policy" in action.



This idea that it's all Russia, is very tiring, it's like Saddams WMDs on steroids, or al-Gaddafis'......... OH, that's right, he didn't have anything at all and was slaughtered ..... just because .

For those who just keep swallowing the same old one sided propaganda BS I suggest you read the following to get yourself up to speed.

Much respect and thanks to Iain Davis at In-This-Together for his insights and thorough research regarding this matter.

Ukraine War! What Is It Good For? The Historical Background (Part 1)

Ukraine War! What Is It Good For? The Nationalist Agenda (Part 2)

Ukraine War! What Is It Good For? The Nazi Agenda (Part 3)

Ukraine War! What Is It Good For? Propaganda (Part 4)

Ukraine War! What Is It Good For? – Sovereignty – (Part 5)

Ukraine War! What Is It Good For? – Transformation – (Part 6)

a reply to: myselfaswellNATO's whole concept was to keep Russia in check or at least in the cross hairs of any future conflict/expansion in that region. They failed a few times about that and now they want action? Yea i am sick of paying $5 or more just to cover up Biden's Barmisa dealings. Someday these truths will reveal themselves.

a reply to: myselfaswell

LoL

That was a pretty good opening volley.

Now for 3 pages of excuses for NATO doing what they claim Russia does constantly.

Sanctions against Russia has put the entire Western world in a tail-spin, and the massive inflation is brutal. All we hear is how bad Russia is hurting, yet they seem to have plenty of trading partners, so I have to wonder whose propaganda is the most accurate.

The more we sanction Russia, the more other countries are aligning with them. Brute force doesn't seem to be working as swiftly as it has in the past with other nations.

a reply to: myselfaswell

No they werent and even Gorbachev has gone on record saying NATO never promised not to expand east.

What other lies of Putin can I debunk for you?


2014 - Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No”

What the Germans, Americans, British and French did agree to in 1990 was that there would be no deployment of non-German NATO forces on the territory of the former GDR. I was a deputy director on the State Department’s Soviet desk at the time, and that was certainly the point of Secretary James Baker’s discussions with Gorbachev and his foreign minister, Eduard Shevardnadze. In 1990, few gave the possibility of a broader NATO enlargement to the east any serious thought.

The agreement on not deploying foreign troops on the territory of the former GDR was incorporated in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, which was signed on September 12, 1990 by the foreign ministers of the two Germanys, the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France. Article 5 had three provisions:

* - Until Soviet forces had completed their withdrawal from the former GDR, only German territorial defense units not integrated into NATO would be deployed in that territory.
* - There would be no increase in the numbers of troops or equipment of U.S., British and French forces stationed in Berlin.
* - Once Soviet forces had withdrawn, German forces assigned to NATO could be deployed in the former GDR, but foreign forces and nuclear weapons systems would not be deployed there.

When one reads the full text of the Woerner speech cited by Putin, it is clear that the secretary general’s comments referred to NATO forces in eastern Germany, not a broader commitment not to enlarge the Alliance.

Woerner Speech - Full text

a reply to: Ksihkehe

To bad none of it was true...

NATO is the MIC’s war machine.

a reply to: myselfaswell

Does your link contain any actual evidence of a promise to Russia, or is it all memorandums of speeches by Genscher and random conversations between people speculating about the future of Europe? I read the first four and it was pointless, so I won't bother wading through the rest of it if it's the same.

a reply to: INnEedOfgOD

Russia asked to join Nato, They were refused, as if they did join, There would be no more bogeyman, And no need for Nato.
It is one big bull# lie, Just to keep the permanent war machine rolling.

a reply to: 11SK1180

No - Russia would have to go thru the admittance criteria, like every other country that applied to join (aside from the founding nations of NATO). Russia didn't want to go thru any of the admittance criteria. Russia also didnt like the fact a country the size of Luxembourg could block any action the alliance took. He didnt like the fact a small country could tell the US or Russia no. Putin wanted to be let in without going thru the process and demanded / thought they would get special treatment.

Russia was NOT refused. Russia's demands were not compatible with NATO so Putin withdrew from the process.

a reply to: Xcathdra

NATO's Deputy Secretary General Mircea Geoană said he expects that permanent NATO military bases will be implemented in Eastern Europe in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Given Putin's recent comments about retaking territories that Russia sees as historically belonging to it I think the move would be a logical defensive reaction to counter Putin's neo-Soviet ambitions.

Sadly for Putin he only has two feet but seems to have shot himself in both.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yep, and unless agreements are inked and signed by all parties without duress, they don't mean much.

Anyone here on ATS who doubts that is free to go their bank and attempt to open an account by word of mouth only.

This particular propaganda approach is ignorant and hasn't gotten better with age.

There was only ONE formal agreement regarding NATO and troop stationing. It addressed the territory of the former East Germany. And that agreement has been honored.

The reason NATO troops ended up in former Warsaw Pact countries is that those countries wanted political distance from Russia and a measure of security that the Russians wouldn't march back into their countries.

And that took place because Russia's foreign policy to those countries is toxic and aggressive.

Cheers

a reply to: myselfaswell

I try to stay out of all the "war in Ukraine" talk, since everything we seem to be told from any side seems to be lies, but world leaders don't have much of a track record of truthful discussion with regards to war and it's prevention.

americandefensenews.com...

Ukraine as an independent state was born from the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. Its independence came with a complicated Cold War inheritance: the world’s third-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons. Ukraine was one of the three non-Russian former Soviet states, including Belarus and Kazakhstan, that emerged from the Soviet collapse with nuclear weapons on its territory.

President Clinton Promised US Protection for Ukraine if it Gave Up its Nukes – Biden Breaking that Promise

Then there is the Afghanistan promise to the interpreters who helped the SF guys. If I was another nation, I wouldn't trust us.

NATO is part of the problem, not the solution, as far as world peace is concerned.

a reply to: choomsuba

NATO is part of the problem, not the solution, as far as world peace is concerned.

Dictators are the bigger problem , NATO is an organization set up after the last Dictator on a land grab was defeated in an effort to try and make sure it doesn't happen again , so far they're doing their job.

Putin's invasion is about more than just Ukraine , NATO's job is to see that he doesn't succeed otherwise we're back at square 1.

Whatever NATO claimed to be in the past does not hold true anymore.
They have morphed in to the military arm of the NWO.

Trump never should have made them paying their fair share an issue in the past, maybe they would have dissolved.

a reply to: network dude

I try to stay out of all the "war in Ukraine" talk

A wise move indeed. I should know better, but sometimes .....

a reply to: gortex

Yeah Putin screw3ed himself with his actions and then compounded that stupidity by comparing himself to Peter the Great.

a reply to: network dude

Yup, it's called the Budapest memo and it was thoroughly destroyed by Russian actions.