reSee.it - Related Video Feed

I met with Putin before or after becoming president, and we discussed NATO potentially fracturing. He seemed excited about the idea of causing problems for NATO.

The Ukraine war didn't begin with Putin's invasion; it's rooted in broken promises. In 1990, the US assured Gorbachev NATO wouldn't expand eastward, a pledge violated starting in 1994. NATO expansion, coupled with US actions like the 1999 bombing of Serbia and the 2002 withdrawal from the ABM treaty, fueled Russian insecurity. The US involvement in Ukrainian politics, including the 2014 coup, further escalated tensions. Putin's 2021 security proposal, seeking to prevent NATO expansion, was rejected. The US's "open door" policy for NATO enlargement, and its support for Ukraine's continued fight, directly contradicts the assurances made to Gorbachev, leading to the current conflict. This is not a simple case of Russian aggression, but a culmination of decades of broken promises and escalating tensions.

NATO expansion is seen by Russia as a broken promise and betrayal. They feel deceived by the continuous expansion of NATO towards their borders, leading to military encirclement and American influence. The lack of a written treaty is dismissed as a technicality, with Russia questioning the trustworthiness of the US. Since the mid-1990s, America's influence has significantly expanded near Russia.

**Original Summary (Deutsch):** Der Sprecher analysiert ein Gesprächsprotokoll von 1990 zwischen James Baker und Michael Gorbatschow bezüglich der NATO-Osterweiterung. Laut dem Protokoll, das aus dem National Security Archive stammt, sicherte Baker Gorbatschow zu, dass sich die NATO nicht ausdehnen würde. Baker argumentierte, dass die NATO die amerikanische Vorherrschaft über Europa sichern könne, was ohne die NATO gefährdet wäre. Wörtlich sagte Baker, man verstehe, dass es für Gorbatschow wichtig sei, dass sich die NATO nicht einen Zentimeter nach Osten ausdehnt, auch nicht im Zuge der deutschen Wiedervereinigung. Der Sprecher betont, dass es sich um Originalprotokolle handelt, die belegen, dass die USA den Sowjets versprochen hätten, die NATO nicht zu erweitern. **English Translation:** The speaker analyzes a 1990 conversation transcript between James Baker and Michael Gorbachev regarding NATO expansion. According to the transcript, sourced from the National Security Archive, Baker assured Gorbachev that NATO would not expand. Baker argued that NATO could secure American dominance over Europe, which would be jeopardized without NATO. Baker literally said that he understood it was important to Gorbachev that NATO not expand one inch eastward, not even in the course of German reunification. The speaker emphasizes that these are original protocols proving that the US promised the Soviets not to expand NATO.

Checklist: - Identify and extract core claims: NATO not moving east; no extension of defense area eastward; not absorbing the GDR; applies generally. - Translate to English while preserving meaning. - Present claims precisely as in the transcript; avoid added judgments. - Exclude filler and repetition; be concise. - Highlight any nuanced phrasing (e.g., “by the way” indicating emphasis). - Keep within a concise length given the brief source. In exchange for German reunification, the West promises not to push NATO further to the east. We were in agreement that there is no intention to extend NATO's defense area to the east. By the way, this does not apply only to the GDR, which we do not want to absorb there, but it applies generally.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify and preserve the core causation chain from 1990 to the present. - Retain all direct claims about NATO expansion, treaties, regime changes, and key US actions. - Highlight unique or surprising elements (intercepted calls, personal connections, blunt quotes). - Exclude repetition, filler, and off-topic discussions. - Do not judge the claims; present them as stated, without added qualifiers. - Translate any non-English nuances into concise English where needed. - Aim for 395–494 words. According to the speaker, the Ukraine war is not a Putin-initiated attack as framed by common narratives, but a long sequence beginning in 1990. James Baker (Secretary of State) told Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move eastward if Germany unified; Gorbachev agreed. The speaker asserts the US then “cheated” with a 1994 Clinton plan to expand NATO to Ukraine, arguing that neoconservatives took power and NATO enlargement began in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Russia initially cared little, seeing no direct border threat beyond Kaliningrad, and NATO’s bombing of Belgrade in 1999 aggravated Moscow. Putin’s leadership is described as initially pro-European; he even considered joining NATO when a mutually respectful relationship existed. After 9/11, Russia supported the US in counterterrorism, but two decisive later actions altered it. In 2002 the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which the speaker says triggered US missile deployments in Eastern Europe—Aegis systems—prompting Russia to fear a decapitation strike from missiles near Moscow. He claims the US then invaded Iraq in 2003 on phony pretenses. In 2004–2005 a “soft regime change operation” in Ukraine (the first color revolution) installed leaders connected to US interests; the speaker recalls advising Ukraine’s government in the early 1990s and knows Yushchenko personally. Yanukovych won Ukraine’s 2009 election and pursued neutrality; the US pressed NATO expansion despite Ukrainian public preference for neutrality amid ethnic divides. On 22 February 2014, the US actively participated in overthrowing Yanukovych, with a leaked call between Victoria Nuland and Jeffrey Pyatt discussing a preferred next government (names like Yatsenyuk/Yats, and influence from Biden) and vowing Western support; the speaker asserts the Americans told Yanukovych to fight on, promising “we’ve got your back” but “we don’t have your front,” pushing Ukraine into front lines and contributing to a high death toll—“six hundred thousand deaths now of Ukrainians since Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv to tell them to be brave.” The speaker contends the war is misrepresented as a madman invading Europe and criticizes it as “bogus, fake history” and a PR narrative by the US government; he claims NYT suppressed his commentary and argues the US ignores prudence in favor of open-ended enlargement. He cautions against pursuing China and Taiwan, warning about nuclear risk if a power challenges the US. He notes Putin’s 2021 security proposal to bar NATO enlargement, the White House’s rejection of negotiations, and NATO’s “open door” stance, which he decries as unstable. The narrative concludes with a focus on preventing further escalation and avoiding a nuclear confrontation.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs discusses a second open letter to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, republished in German media, explaining that he wrote it because the situation in Ukraine is worse than six months earlier. He contrasts the letter he wrote previously (December 2025), when he described war mongering and escalation and urged Germany to act diplomatically due to its power and historical responsibilities, with a period in January 2026 when he saw “glimmers of hope” after Merz publicly said Russia is part of Europe and that Europe must speak with Russia. He says that European leaders then began publicly considering a new envoy or diplomatic mediator, but that no process produced results, and he highlights that he views the proposed chief diplomat, Kaja Kallas, as unacceptable to both sides for what he describes as anti-Russian hostility. In recent weeks, Sachs says escalation has come through increased rhetoric and specific events. He points to the Ukrainian attack on a girls’ school in Starobilsk with many student deaths and claims Europe responded with denial or silence, rather than apology or explanation. He also describes Russia, through Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, warning in a call with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Russia would attack Kyiv, targeting control centers and operational areas, and advising Western diplomats to take safety measures and evacuate. Sachs says the attack had not yet occurred at the time he spoke but that it was expected. He adds that he sees other contested and unexplained incidents—such as drones in Baltic airspace and a drone hitting near the Ukraine border in Romania—as raising tension. He also cites Baltic-state rhetoric about possibly attacking Kaliningrad or using it as a base for drone operations into northwest Russia and characterizes all of this as irresponsible behavior in a nuclear age. He says he places principal responsibility on Europe, arguing Europe shows minimal interest in diplomacy and only “whines” when the U.S. and Russia speak, while a union of 450 million should be able to find someone to talk to Russia. Sachs argues diplomacy is correct but emphasizes Germany’s particular responsibility tied to specific commitments from 1990 onward. He states that German reunification terms—approved by the Soviet Union and other occupying powers—required that Germany not take advantage of reunification by moving military forces eastward into Central and Eastern Europe, and he says Germany and the United States violated those commitments by moving NATO forces east, including toward Ukraine and Georgia. He claims this long-standing duplicity underlies rising tensions over more than 30 years, and he says his letter cites six episodes of Germany not following through honestly. He further urges Europe to express condolences or apologize for the Starobilsk girls’ school attack and calls for civility, honesty, humanity, and discussion rather than further war-mongering and hate speech. He says NATO countries have key responsibility in resolving the conflict because he links the security competition to NATO decisions and earlier actions affecting Ukraine’s neutrality. He references the 2008 Bucharest NATO summit, describing NATO’s commitment to enlarge to Ukraine and Georgia as reckless and as a declaration of war in how Russia would see it. He also recounts a 2021 proposal involving a draft security arrangement between Russia and the U.S., and he says that in his call with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, he pushed for the U.S. to commit to no further NATO enlargement, while he describes Sullivan’s response as saying it would not lead to war and would be handled diplomatically. Sachs then recounts events in 2014 and 2015: he says an agreement involving Germany, France, and Poland to prevent a coup was followed by a violent coup; he says Germany went along with the post-coup direction. He also says that in 2015, during the Minsk II process, Germany and France negotiated an autonomy-based arrangement for ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, Germany presented itself as a guarantor, but later reneged. He claims that the West did not want Ukraine’s unitary structure weakened and that the Minsk II endorsement by the UN Security Council was later ignored. He argues that Merz has a responsibility to know these histories and act by contacting President Putin before Europe is embroiled in another war. In response, Glenn emphasizes Germany as a guarantor in 2014 then walking back, says Minsk efforts were sabotaged for years, and claims multiple diplomatic paths were blocked, including possibilities for negotiation after 2021. Glenn says Russia now escalates directly against Europe given increased rhetoric and potential direct attacks. Sachs concludes that governments appear to avoid open discussion, diplomacy, and communication, and he says leadership and institutions are “hunkered down,” leaving falsehoods unresolved. He hopes to discuss positive developments in the future.

In Ukraine, we are engaged in a proxy war that could have been avoided if we had honored the promise made to Gorbachev regarding NATO expansion. Moving eastward would infringe on Russia's borders, similar to their missile placement in Cuba. In the past, leaders communicated effectively to prevent escalation, but that seems lacking now. Instead, there is a focus on competition and military might, leading to increased tensions in both Ukraine and Israel.

The speaker discusses the idea of Russia joining NATO and relates it to recently declassified documents. He reads a 1954 note from the Soviet government to NATO member countries, stating: "Relying on the unchanging principles of our peaceful foreign policy and striving to reduce tension in international relations, the Soviet government expresses readiness to consider jointly with interested governments the question of the USSR's participation in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization." He then presents the response to that proposal: “There is no need to underline the utterly unrealistic nature of such a proposal.” The speaker recalls an earlier moment, about a year prior, when, in response to the question about Russia possibly joining NATO, he said, “why not?” He notes that former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, while traveling in Europe, responded that this is not being discussed now. The core discussion is framed around understanding whether NATO is a military organization and whether Russia would be welcome there. The speaker suggests that NATO is indeed a military organization and questions whether Russia would be wanted there. He asserts that NATO “is moving toward our borders,” and he ascribes to this movement a purpose or inevitability that shapes Russia’s position on the issue. In summarizing the underlying basis of the Russian position, the speaker emphasizes the perception that NATO’s character as a military alliance and its movements toward Russia’s borders inform a strategic stance against expanding membership to include Russia. He contrasts the historical openness expressed in 1954 with the contemporary response that such a proposal is not realistic, and with current statements from Western officials indicating that Russia’s accession is not under consideration. The narrative ties together declassified archival material, a past provocative-appearing suggestion, and present-day geopolitical calculations about NATO’s reach and military posture near Russia.

**German Summary:** Es wird die Frage behandelt, warum die Nicht-Osterweiterung der NATO nicht vertraglich fixiert wurde. Damals existierten NATO und Warschauer Pakt, wodurch sich die Frage einer solchen Fixierung nicht stellte. Es wird als Mythos bezeichnet, dass Russland bezüglich der NATO-Osterweiterung betrogen wurde, wobei die Presse eine Rolle gespielt habe. Moskau hätte im Zuge der deutschen Vereinigung Zusagen erhalten, dass sich die NATO nicht nach Osten ausdehnt. Ursprünglich bestand man darauf, dass Deutschland neutral bleibt, aber beim Gipfel in Camp David stimmte man einem vereinten Deutschland in der NATO zu. Mit der vollen staatlichen Souveränität Deutschlands war klar, dass es selbst über seine Bündniszugehörigkeit entscheidet. **English Translation:** The question of why NATO's non-eastern expansion was not contractually fixed is addressed. At that time, NATO and the Warsaw Pact existed, so the question of such a fixation did not arise. It is described as a myth that Russia was deceived regarding NATO's eastern expansion, with the press playing a role. Moscow is said to have received assurances during the German unification process that NATO would not expand eastward. Initially, it was insisted that Germany remain neutral, but at the Camp David summit, agreement was given to a united Germany in NATO. With Germany's full state sovereignty, it was clear that it would decide on its own alliance membership.

The speaker expresses deep sadness about the current situation with Russia, noting extensive time spent in Russia in the 1980s and 1990s and connections with people who ran the government then. He argues that a fundamental error by the United States in the mid to late 1980s and early 1990s was the expansion of NATO. He emphasizes that after the Cold War was won, there was debate about NATO’s future, and the idea of expanding it arose despite it being a bureaucracy that “works.” The speaker recounts a key episode from the reunification negotiations with Germany. He says that during those talks, Gorbachev and Jim Baker discussed the treaty, which stated that there would be no NATO troops in East Germany, and Baker told Gorbachev that if Germany were reunified and NATO expanded beyond that, NATO would not expand “one inch further east.” The speaker states that Gorbachev told him and others that Baker had promised this interpretation, and that Gorbachev also told Coal (likely a reference to other Russian officials) the same thing, which he says was new information. He asserts that the first Bush administration kept this promise, or at least appeared to honor it, pursuing a partnership for peace that Russians somewhat liked. With the Clinton administration, the speaker asserts, the first thing done in his first term was to expand NATO. He questions the rationale, referencing Strobe Talbot’s Foreign Affairs article on why NATO was expanded, and implies the reasons were insufficient. In conversations with Russians who ran for president in 1996 and 2000, he recalls a question from the Urals about why the Americans were expanding NATO, noting that although NATO is a military alliance, Russians might not understand puts and calls but do understand tanks. He quotes a Russian politician who says, “Russians might not be able to understand puts and calls, but they certainly understand tanks.” The speaker uses a banking analogy: a friend or supporter goes bankrupt, and you call to offer encouragement; instead, the United States “kicked them when they were down” by expanding NATO. He contends that this expansion created the justification for authoritarianism’s return in Russia and characterizes it as a blunder of monumental proportions. He reflects that at Oxford he studied Cold War origins and believes the Russians were responsible for much of it, describing the expansion as born of bureaucratic inertia within NATO, or, in the worst case, a self-fulfilling prophecy among certain Clinton-era officials who believed Russia would forever be the enemy. Looking forward, the speaker suggests a missed opportunity for a strategic partnership built on common long-term threats and cooperation, noting that Russia would have been a significant partner given its oil and regional influence. He concludes with a sense of profound sadness, arguing that the United States created a problem that could have been avoided and lost an important long-term partner, especially on today’s most threatening issues.

My skepticism towards Putin's narrative stems from my extensive knowledge of US foreign policy. The US has a history of illegal interventions: bombing Belgrade to alter borders, wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, and the overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014, despite a prior EU agreement. The Minsk II agreement, unanimously adopted by the UN Security Council, was essentially disregarded by the US and Ukraine, delaying a peaceful resolution. This history makes it difficult for me to trust the US government. A lasting peace requires transparency and accountability. Both the US and Russia need to publicly commit to ending regime change operations, respecting existing borders, and halting NATO expansion. Then, the world can judge the terms of any agreement.

I think President Putin believes NATO's expansion is the reason the Russian army is at NATO's doorstep, but we certainly don't see it that way. NATO has expanded, but that's a good thing. I'm pretty sure it wasn't NATO who ordered troops to the Ukrainian border or destabilized Eastern Ukraine. NATO is a security alliance, not an anti-Russia alliance. For fifty years, it was an anti-Soviet alliance. I'm not going to pretend to know what goes on in President Putin's mind. NATO has expanded, but there's no reason to think the expansion is hostile. We're blaming Russia for violating Ukraine's territorial integrity.

According to the speaker, the conflict in Ukraine began in 1990 when James Baker allegedly told Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move "one inch eastward" if he agreed to German unification. The US then supposedly cheated on this agreement, starting in 1994 under Clinton, with plans to expand NATO to Ukraine. NATO expansion began in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. The US bombing of Serbia in 1999 was another point of contention. In 2002, the US unilaterally withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile treaty, leading to missile systems in Eastern Europe that Russia perceived as a threat. The US allegedly participated in the overthrow of Yanukovych in 2014. Putin repeatedly asked the US to stop NATO enlargement, especially after Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined in 2004. In December 2021, Putin proposed a Russia-US security agreement based on no NATO enlargement, but the White House rejected negotiations, maintaining an "open door policy" for NATO. After the special military operation began, Zelensky initially signaled openness to neutrality, but the US and Britain allegedly encouraged continued fighting.

Jack Matlock, the former U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union, argues that the end of the Cold War was not the Soviet Union’s collapse alone, but a process that was ideologically and practically over years before 1991. He says there were no winners and losers in the closing of the Cold War; the end was negotiated in the interests of both sides, with Gorbachev abandoning the communist ideology that had driven the conflict. The Soviet state’s monopoly in the economy and the shift away from a socialist system were central to the transformations, and the Soviet Union likely would not have collapsed if the Cold War had continued. He notes that in negotiations on German unification, Gorbachev was assured that NATO would not expand eastward, and that a Malta-style agreement had committed the U.S. and U.K. to not use force in Eastern Europe to preserve the system there and for the West not to take advantage—that commitment was written and reiterated in a letter delivered by him. He rejects the idea that the U.S. and the West defeated the Soviet Union; rather, internal pressures and changes within the Soviet system precipitated its dissolution. On NATO expansion, Matlock confirms that a promise was made but not codified in treaties. He recounts Secretary of State James Baker’s February 1990 discussions with Gorbachev about German unification under NATO, suggesting that while NATO expansion would be unacceptable, the U.S. recognized a stabilizing European military presence. He notes that Gorbachev understood the points, and later said expansion would be unacceptable, while acknowledging that some American legal interpretations limited East German sovereignty in the matter. He emphasizes that the expansion of NATO would turn it from a defensive alliance into an offensive one if used beyond Europe, especially in the broader context of post-Cold War security. He cites the Russian view that NATO’s eastward expansion threatened Russia and the later issue of missile defense bases in Romania and Poland as particularly provocative. Matlock argues that the West’s approach to Russia after the Cold War was a major misstep. He says the U.S. and Western Europeans treated Russia as a pariah and sought to shape Russia’s internal politics, including pressure on Ukraine and the 2014 coup context. He highlights the 1990s effort to broker a pan-European security structure and the danger of “unipolar” thinking after the Cold War, warning that a perception of Western moral superiority undermined sustainable diplomacy. He criticizes Western interventions in Serbia, Iraq, and Libya as examples of hubris and mismanagement, asserting that such actions worsened regional stability and produced blowback, including the rise of extremist forces. Regarding Ukraine, Matlock suggests that NATO’s insistence on eventual membership for Ukraine and Georgia was ill-advised, given popular resistance within Ukraine and the risk of provoking Moscow. He cites Minsk 2015 as an attempt to halt further conflict, noting that Russia agreed to certain conditions but that Western partners continued arms supplies, complicating ceasefires. He stresses that the Donbas and Crimea issues were deeply rooted in historical borders and language rights, and that external attempts to dictate internal politics were unhelpful. Looking forward, Matlock laments the erosion of diplomatic norms and argues that the U.S. and Europe are ceding leadership to China, which he sees as better at pursuing peace and developing new energy and technology sectors. He calls for a re-examination of security architecture and a renewed commitment to diplomacy and dialogue, noting Pope Francis’ recent calls for frank discussions on peace. He concludes by acknowledging the tragedy that no one is focusing on peace in current conflicts, including in Iran and Ukraine.

Speaker 0 argues that this is not an attack by Putin on Ukraine in the way it is commonly framed. The speaker references 1990, stating that on 02/09/1990 James Baker III told Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move eastward if Germany unified, and that Gorbachev agreed, ending World War II. The speaker asserts that the US then cheated starting in 1994 when Clinton signed off on a plan to expand NATO all the way to Ukraine, marking the rise of the neocons and identifying Clinton as the first agent of this. NATO expansion began in 1999 with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, at which point Russia did not see a direct threat. The speaker notes the US-led bombing of Serbia in 1999 as problematic, describing it as NATO bombing Belgrade for seventy-eight straight days to break the country apart, which Russia did not like. Putin became president, and the Russians initially tolerated and complained but were largely subdued. The speaker claims Putin started out pro-European and pro-American, even suggesting joining NATO when there was some mutual respect. After 9/11 and the Afghan conflict, Russia supported the effort to root out terror. Two decisive actions are highlighted: in 2002, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, described as perhaps the most decisive event rarely discussed in this context. This led to the US placing missile systems in Eastern Europe, which Russia views as a direct threat. The speaker mentions a soft regime change operation in Ukraine in 2004-2005, followed by Yanukovych winning the election in 2009 and becoming president in 2010 on the basis of neutrality for Ukraine. This calmed tensions because the US was pushing NATO, while Ukrainian public opinion reportedly did not want NATO membership, citing a divided country between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians and a desire to stay away from certain conflicts. In 02/22/2014, the United States allegedly participated in the overthrow of Yanukovych, described as a typical US regime change operation. The Russians supposedly intercepted a call between Victoria Nuland (then at the State Department, now at Columbia University) and Jeffrey Piot, the US ambassador to Ukraine, discussing who would be in the next government. The speaker asserts that after these events, the US said NATO would enlarge, while Putin repeatedly warned to stop, noting that promises were made not to enlarge NATO. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia are listed as having joined NATO in 2004, before the broader enlargement. The speaker accuses the US of rejecting the basic idea of not expanding NATO to Russia’s border while placing missile systems after breaking a treaty, including walking out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in 2019. On 12/15/2021, Putin allegedly proposed a draft Russia-US security agreement with no NATO enlargement, which the speaker says he communicated to the White House, urging negotiations to avoid war. The speaker claims Jake Sullivan asserted an open-door policy for NATO enlargement, calling it “bullshit,” and asserts that they refused negotiations, leading to the special military operation, with Zelensky offering neutrality and Western leaders pushing Ukraine to fight, resulting in “600,000 deaths now of Ukrainians.”

Speaker 0 states he wanted Ukraine, not Russia, to join NATO. He felt Ukraine needed to be in the EU and NATO. Speaker 1 brings up that Secretary of State Baker primed Gorbachev in the early nineties not to expand NATO. Speaker 0 responds that times change and the United States must be flexible and adjust to the times, which is why there is strong support for Speaker 1's country now. Speaker 1 says it doesn't matter what Baker primed Gorbachev with in the past, and that we have to see what is going on now.

I believe the US has a history of overthrowing governments and breaking promises. The speaker mentions various instances like bombing Serbia, overthrowing leaders in Ukraine, and disregarding the Minsk 2 agreement. They emphasize the need for both sides to come to a clear agreement to avoid further conflict, with the US committing to not overthrow governments and Russia agreeing not to expand. The speaker calls for transparency and adherence to treaties for peace to prevail.

In 1990, Gorbachev made a deal to dismantle the Warsaw Pact in exchange for NATO not moving eastward. This deal was deeply discussed and negotiated, leading to the reunification of Germany. The speaker believed in this deal and in Gorbachev.

The Ukraine conflict didn't begin with Putin's 2022 invasion; it's rooted in broken promises dating back to 1990. The US, despite assurances to Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't expand eastward, violated this agreement, starting with NATO expansion in 1999. This was followed by NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 and the placement of missile systems in Eastern Europe, viewed by Russia as a direct threat. Further US involvement included the 2004 and 2014 Ukrainian regime changes. Despite Putin's initial pro-Western stance and his 2021 proposal for a security agreement barring NATO expansion, the West's continued support for Ukraine escalated the conflict. The narrative of Putin as a madman is a misrepresentation; this is a complex geopolitical game with potentially devastating consequences.

Speaker is saddened about Russia, arguing the fundamental blunder was the expansion of NATO in the mid eighties and early nineties. He cites the Germany reunification talks: Gorbachev and Jim Baker discussed 'no NATO troops in what was in East Germany' and 'NATO if you agree to reunification of Germany in NATO, no expand NATO will not expand one inch further east.' The first Bush administration kept its promise; Russians liked that. Clinton expanded NATO in his first term. He cites Strobe Talbot's article on why expand NATO. A Russian politician asked, 'Russians might not be able to understand puts and calls, but they certainly understand tanks.' He says expanding NATO 'kicked them when they were down' and was a 'blunder of monumental proportions.' He argues a 'strategic partnership' on 'common threats over the long term' could have worked; 'Russia would be back.' We've lost a partner that could have been enormously important over the long term.

In 1994, the U.S. initiated a project to expand NATO eastward indefinitely, despite earlier assurances to President Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't move "one inch eastward." This expansion continued under successive presidents, with seven more countries added in 2004. Putin voiced his opposition in 2007, reminding the U.S. of their promise. Further destabilization occurred when the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 and moved towards including Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, which led to conflict. In 2010, Ukraine elected a neutral president, Yanukovych, who was later overthrown in 2014. Recently, a call between Presidents Trump and Putin, along with a statement from the new defense secretary, suggests a potential shift towards respecting Russia's concerns and acknowledging that Ukraine will not join NATO, potentially forming a basis for peace.

Speaker 1 denies being deceived by the West regarding NATO's eastward expansion. They explain that at the time, there was no need for a contractual agreement as the NATO and Warsaw Pact already existed. Speaker 1 dismisses the myth and suggests that the press played a role in spreading misinformation. Regarding Moscow's alleged assurances during German reunification, Speaker 1 states that Germany was expected to remain neutral but ultimately chose to join NATO after regaining full sovereignty. When asked about the topic, the former Soviet Defense Minister denies any discussions with Speaker 1 about Western guarantees. However, he is unsure if any agreements were made with the US.

Professor Jeffrey Sachs and Glenn unpack how European security architecture evolved and why current moves toward a Europe-centered NATO, possibly including Ukraine and excluding Russia, look so perilous. - Sachs recounts a historic 1990 opportunity offered by Mikhail Gorbachev: a “common European home” stretching from Rotterdam to Vladivostok, with internal Soviet reforms, demilitarization, and, crucially, an end to NATO expansion. The promise by Germany and the United States in pursuit of German reunification was that “NATO would not move one inch eastward.” This indivisible-security concept echoed the Helsinki final act: no country would join an alliance threatening others. Yet NATO expanded, despite that explicit commitment, and that expansion contributed to the current Ukraine conflict. - Two motives behind NATO enlargement are highlighted. First, to keep the United States in Europe as a security defender, especially for Central and Eastern European states emerging from Soviet domination, which wanted continued U.S. protection despite no evident external threat. Second, the United States used NATO enlargement as a tool for projecting American power in a unipolar world after the Soviet collapse, turning NATO into the military branch of U.S. overseas power and serving a broader hegemonic aim. - Brzezinski’s influence is emphasized: in The Grand Chessboard (1997), he argued Eurasia centered on Ukraine; “he who controls Ukraine controls Eurasia.” Brzezinski advocated expanding Europe and NATO to diminish Russia, envisioning a weakened or divided Russia. This framed Ukraine as a geopolitical prize, with Ukraine’s joining NATO seen as a strategy to prevent a revived Russian power. - The expansion waves are traced: 1999 brought Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic; 2004 added seven states including the Baltic states and Romania; 2008 and the Bucharest summit sparked a pledge that Ukraine and Georgia would join NATO, a timetable Merkel later resisted but ultimately yielded to U.S. pressure. The 2004 expansion followed the U.S. withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, further destabilizing the nuclear balance and fueling Russian resentment. - The Maidan coup of 2014 in Ukraine, aided by Western support, brought to power a government that favored NATO alignment, intensifying Russian pushback and making Europe’s pro-NATO stance more central to policy, even as Russia resisted. The aim was to bring Ukraine into NATO, which Sachs argues was not defense-driven but an assertion of American hegemony. - Sachs contrasts two mindsets: Eastern Europe’s Russophobia, rooted in decades of Soviet domination, especially among the Baltic states and Poland, driving a hardline stance; and a German role that has shifted from a historic commitment to make peace with Russia (Austrian-style realpolitik) to endorsing NATO expansion for commercial investments, a shift he finds dangerous. He criticizes Merkel for acquiescing to U.S. pressure on enlargement and labels Scholz and Merkel’s posture as failures to maintain a balanced European peace. British Russophobia also colors policy, he adds, underscoring a transatlantic appetite for confrontation. - The broader risk is a security dilemma: Europe’s defensive steps may provoke offensive reactions, potentially leading toward war, especially if a “European NATO” is formed to deter or strike at Russia without credible allied protection. Sachs argues the current direction shows a lack of political and security imagination in Europe, with a remilitarization path that could be a march to war. - In closing, Sachs notes the paradox: European leaders recognize risk but still pursue a path that could escalate conflict with a nuclear power, while the debate continues about deterrence, defense, and the future of European security architecture.

Speaker 1 argues that the United States has repeatedly engaged in illegal military actions and regime changes in multiple countries, starting with the bombing of Belgrade for 78 days to change borders of a European state, with the aim of breaking Serbia and installing Bondsteel, a large NATO base in the Balkans, under Clinton. They claim this was done without UN authority and described as a NATO mission. Speaker 1 continues, alleging that the US has subsequently waged war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, where, according to them, the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton tasked the CIA with overthrowing Bashar al-Assad. They also claim NATO illegally bombed Libya to topple Muammar Gaddafi, and that in Kyiv in February 2014 the US overthrew Yanukovych together with right-wing Ukrainian military forces, noting that the overthrow happened the day after EU representatives had reached an agreement with Yanukovych for early elections, a government of national unity, and a stand-down of both sides. They assert that the US supported the new government immediately afterward, despite that agreement and without addressing it as unconstitutional. Speaker 1 asserts that Russia, the United States, and the EU were parties to the 2015 Minsk two agreement, which was unanimously voted on by the UN Security Council, signed by the government of Ukraine, and guaranteed explicitly by Germany and France. They contend that Minsk II was dismissed as a holding pattern by inside-US government circles, despite the UN Security Council approval. They claim Angela Merkel later said Minsk II was a holding pattern to allow Ukraine time to build its strength, countering the assertion that Minsk II was meant to end the war. The speaker emphasizes distrust of the United States government and calls for all sides to sit down publicly to agree on terms, with both the United States and Russia committing to specific boundaries, and for NATO not to enlarge, so that a written, global judgment can be made. Speaker 2 adds that there has been an ongoing effort to create an anti-Russian platform in Ukraine, describing it as an enclave, and accusing the US and its allies of lying about not expanding NATO multiple times. Speaker 3 states that President Putin sent a draft treaty asking NATO to promise no more enlargement as a precondition for not invading Ukraine, and notes that this draft was not signed.