Military Review

US archival materials on how Gorbachev was promised "non-expansion" of NATO

62
15 March 1990, the extraordinary Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, then also called the “model of the indestructible bloc between communists and non-partisans”, elected Mikhail Gorbachev as President of the Land of Soviets. The first and, as it turned out very soon, the last.


US archival materials on how Gorbachev was promised "non-expansion" of NATO


Perestroika gave a powerful slip. The Soviet Union was in a fever from interethnic conflicts. Store shelves are rapidly becoming empty. But the country has been confronted face to face with the greatest achievement of the Gorbachev era — a great friendship with the West.

Wide white-toothed smiles, friendly pats on the shoulder, the summit there, the summit here ... The country was falling apart before our eyes: the Baltic States, the Caucasus floated away under radical nationalist slogans, Central Asia broke away. In Russia itself (RSFSR) a wave of discord, poverty and chaos was rising. The country has lost the thread of foreign policy on the protection of interests on distant approaches. But Mikhail Sergeevich did it happen before that. Mikhail Sergeyevich had euphoria ...

After all, he has been courted by his fellow politicians from Europe and North America for many years now, and they have fought in all places, saying: “Mikhail Sergeyevich is correct! Right!"

Withdrawn troops from Afghanistan. Euphoria? - Euphoria. The Berlin Wall collapsed. Euphoria? - Well, of course euphoria. Especially when, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Helmut Kohl, Douglas Hurd and others, others, others, shaking hands with Gorbachev, said something like the following: Well, you gave, Misha! .. We did not expect such a turn. They thought you were a fist on the table - hryas ... You thought, you would demand reinforced concrete documentary guarantees “in exchange” for the step of unifying Germany. And you, Michal Sergeyevich, well done! - did everything so that even it was difficult for us to hope. Then you go to the office for the Nobel Prize.

And Mikhail Sergeevich blossomed. He wanted to show even more confidence to the Western friends of the USSR. And let’s say, instead of the secretary general of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, thrice cursed by all progressive humanity of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, will you become a real democratic leader?

Well, of course, Misha, the friends approved. How can people be reminded of the bloody pages stories this party. Be you president! Just listen to the sound: pre-zi-dent! - chased, democratic, fresh!

And so, my friends, with the non-expansion of NATO? “You hurt, Mikhal Sergeyevich, everything was promised: they said, NATO will not expand, so NATO, as you see, does not expand anywhere. Our word, Michal Sergeich - granite, lump! And the fact that you believed us is just great. We ourselves do not believe in ourselves, and our people do not believe in us, but you believed in us — a worthy politician, ma la dez — take something else from the shelf. Credit? - you say. - Well, there will be a loan to you - all the same, you will not be paid - the descendants will pay off ... We’ll somehow wait, the interest is good - double-digit, in dollars.

Why all this "lyrics"? And to the fact that at the end of last year, the US National Security Archives at the George Washington University published a material that consists of numerous notes and notes related in one way or another to the “guarantees”, as it were, provided by Western partners of the then Soviet power elite. The material is called "NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev heard."

In enough bulk document it was quite frankly stated that, in fact, no one offered Gorbachev any guarantees, unless, of course, the statements in the series “Yes, we say to you for sure that NATO will not expand” will be considered guarantees.

What attracts attention?

European leaders, including Germans, British, and French, by and large, did not themselves believe that Gorbachev, without any “steep” requests, would agree to actually surrender not only the GDR, but the entire Eastern bloc. So, the note contained in the mentioned American archive is published, on which are the words of the then head of German diplomacy Hans-Dietrich Genscher. The note was transmitted to Washington through the American embassy in Bonn. Fragment of the text:
Changes in Eastern Europe and the unification of Germany should not be to the detriment of Soviet security interests. The East German facilities cannot be included in the NATO military structures. East Germany must have a special status in this context.

By the way, in the end, even a document was born - from 12 September 1990 of the year - which this pseudo-special status assigned to the former GDR.
The same Genscher from February 1990:
The Soviet Union should receive assurances that, if, for example, the leadership of Poland at some point leaves the ATS (Warsaw Pact Organization), then the very next day it will not join NATO.


This wording in words (this is the key word - ON WORD) was supported by the official London, which in the usual frankly deceitful manner through the mouth of the then Foreign Minister of Britain, Douglas Herd, declared: NATO will not move east to an inch.
Immediately, the wording was picked up by the US Secretary of State James Baker: Yes, yes, he says - Not an inch ...

From the material published by the US National Security Archive:
Not only the Soviet Union, but also other countries need assurances that if the United States maintains a presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, the current military jurisdiction of the Alliance will not move an inch to the east.


Then Gorbachev was asked: how does he look at the fact that after the unification of Germany, the American troops in the western part of it remain, they do not climb to the east, like the entire NATO infrastructure? And the general president replied:

Of course, no NATO expansion is unacceptable.


The most important note from the American archive with the words of James Baker:
It turns out that NATO in the current borders (at that time - author's note) - is acceptable.


This has actually untied the hands of the United States. Washington's frank draining of any "verbal promises" to Gorbachev by the then director of central intelligence (a prototype of the CIA) Robert Gates untied Washington's hands. If the secretary of state, who naively called the third person in the United States after the president and vice-president, still tried to declare that the Warsaw Pact countries need to block the very possibility of joining NATO, then Gates, seeing the crumbling USSR, made a different decision declaring something like this: “Guys, let's still not close all the doors to them (the“ socialist camp ”countries)”. And in fact, he did not deceive: at first, they kept the doors ajar, then they threw open wide, and only now they put a turnstile on them, so that only those who were really useful to NATO could enter.

Noteworthy in the published archival data materials relating to the position of the then official Paris. And then the French authorities were not yet servile at the American court. So ... Francois Mitterrand in May 1990, Gorbachev said the following thing: Friend, dear, you can listen to Americans, of course, but let's still think together: if everything goes to the fact that Germany is really uniting, dismantling the Organization Warsaw Pact, it is reasonable to raise the issue and that the military blocs were completely abolished.

That is, there was an unequivocal hint that Gorbachev could have put the approval of the merger of the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR with the elimination of NATO.

However, as is well known, the future Nobel Prize laureate didn’t go at that. Officially, he was content with verbal guarantees of the security of the USSR and non-expansion of NATO.

But really, well, what kind of anti-state cockroaches in my head needed to be at that moment in order to pro ... uh-uh ...- to allow such an opportunity as mutually beneficial mutual liquidation of military blocs: Western NATO and Eastern OVD. It was quite worthy of the Nobel Prize. But ... NATO, as a military institution, has survived. And if, as the classic used to say, a gun hangs on the wall, then it will necessarily (according to the laws of the genre) shoot. And the shot ... It still burns so that the ears are laying.

Therefore, much can be said today on the topic: Mikhail Gorbachev was deceived by sophisticated Western combinators with their verbal promises, but only for the head of the world's largest state with a powerful army, branching by a network of special services, decades-old ideology is clearly not an explanation. In fact, there was a frank surrender of state interests. Let this be true with a beard, but the materials published by the Americans once again confirm this very fact.

Again - link on materials published in the USA. There is something to pay attention to.
Author:
Photos used:
from open sources
62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. moskowit
    moskowit 16 March 2018 06: 36
    +11
    GorMikhSer- "champion of the world" among traitors ... Vlasov is not suitable for him "out of the way" ...
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 16 March 2018 06: 56
      +10
      well ... traditionally: "burn in hell with * people labeled!" am
      1. Alber
        Alber 16 March 2018 14: 17
        +5
        Quote: Andrew Y.
        well ... traditionally: "burn in hell with * people labeled!" am


        Up to the seventh generation, all his descendants ...
        1. dSK
          dSK 17 March 2018 12: 14
          0
          This is history - the last General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee (1985-1991), the last "ruling" communist of Russia ...
  2. Firework
    Firework 16 March 2018 06: 46
    +4
    it is interesting that the peace-loving Gorbachev is more negatively assessed by his compatriots than Comrade Stalin
    1. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 16 March 2018 06: 57
      +8
      Quote: Salute
      it is interesting that the peace-loving Gorbachev is more negatively assessed by his compatriots than Comrade Stalin

      "salute" ... Are you really so "blessed" or are you pretending? (just wondering)
      1. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 16 March 2018 07: 35
        +5
        almost 30 years have passed since that time! Our archives are not open. Despite the fact that from time to time liberalism praises E.B.N. ---- a, about the hunchback, about his time ---- silence.
        Thanks to the author for informing us about the opening of the state archives. The staff decided to open the eyes of the whole world to the humpbacked lizopop! It's just worth thinking about how, why they decided to do it right now. In general, what information have they made public recently? It was about opening the CIA archives ....
        1. antivirus
          antivirus 16 March 2018 09: 56
          +7
          I'm interested - The Gaidar Institute will investigate! OBJECTIVELY! the activities of the Government of the Russian Federation in 91-93?
          with the issuance of assessments of all, including EGaydar
          1. Reptiloid
            Reptiloid 16 March 2018 10: 06
            +7
            Quote: antivirus
            I'm interested - The Gaidar Institute will investigate! OBJECTIVELY! the activities of the Government of the Russian Federation in 91-93?
            with the issuance of assessments of all, including EGaydar
            I think, dear, you know that the answer is no. Somehow you explained something to me about those times. From time to time here and there publications or stories appear as what happened. But not enough, of course. And also the clever Gaidar (someone said so) books are still being published. Just the other day I saw. And not cheap.
            1. antivirus
              antivirus 16 March 2018 10: 12
              +3
              in those years, many "rotten" - forced decisions were made. both Chubais and others (Nechaev, Aven,) and Gaidar will simply sign their death sentences with these open archives.
              many people remember the time and how the Second World War - min 100 years, many simple solutions cannot be made public.
              Those decisions-decisions and Ch. — Their initial reasons (why so, and not otherwise ...) –– do not fit into the Soviet rules of management-life, nor in modern market
              1. Reptiloid
                Reptiloid 16 March 2018 10: 50
                +7
                I was small at that time. I doubt that many people remember. After all, changes began to occur quickly, I don’t think everyone understood how and what. Again ---- the deficit and queues, probably, everyone remembers. My grandmother took me, according to those present, they "gave", individually, products. And what except this, external ---- everything is mixed up. ?? And ---- shock therapy !,
                And the forum was named ---- Gaidarovsky! So they are going the same way! Same libersty, fosterlings of a drunk.
                1. antivirus
                  antivirus 16 March 2018 11: 09
                  +2
                  A SIMPLE QUESTION OF EMPLOYMENT - TO GIVE MONEY TO THE FACTORY OR NOT? WILL THE DIR-R BEEN BENDING TO THE LEFT OR RUN IT OUT FOR THIS OR TAKE%?
                  or maybe you need to go bankrupt? - long time did not eliminate the legal entity. pulled. employment "saved" -with no wage.
                  and simple and honest decisions: “we close XXX and create a UUU, the money went into the sand. now we need to work in a new way ... and tp” - many times we did not dare to reform specific collective farm plants
                  1. Reptiloid
                    Reptiloid 16 March 2018 14: 40
                    0
                    Quote: antivirus
                    A SIMPLE QUESTION OF EMPLOYMENT - TO GIVE MONEY TO THE FACTORY OR NOT? WILL THE DIR-R BEEN BENDING TO THE LEFT OR RUN IT OUT FOR THIS OR TAKE%?
                    or maybe you need to go bankrupt? - long time did not eliminate the legal entity. pulled. employment "saved" -with no wage.
                    and simple and honest decisions: “we close XXX and create a UUU, the money went into the sand. now we need to work in a new way ... and tp” - many times we did not dare to reform specific collective farm plants

                    Now it’s somehow not going to the brain --- to keep “employment without a salary” ???? After all, they probably promised that everything would work out? But in reality what? Humiliation by lies, bringing to poverty, disease, to disorient, so that there is no will to resist? That those who did not fit into the market would die as soon as possible?
                    1. antivirus
                      antivirus 16 March 2018 15: 43
                      +2
                      at the end of February-beginning of March 92 g EBN: I have 7 sources of information, I know about everything, Everything is correct.
                      or - be patient, now the market will start working, prices have been released, everything will be fine in six months. etc.
                      to the same speeches and "LET'S HEAD ON THE RAILS .."
  3. x917nt
    x917nt 16 March 2018 06: 54
    +1
    The loser in the war is not supposed to dictate conditions. We must remember this and stop blaming Gorbachev for some kind of betrayal.
    1. Rurikovich
      Rurikovich 16 March 2018 07: 04
      +9
      Quote: x917nt
      We must remember this and stop accusing Gorbachev of some kind of betrayal.

      And what do you suggest, dear, prostrate yourself and how do losers kiss the shoes of Uncle Sam's winner? belay fool
      Quote: x917nt
      The loser in the war is not supposed to dictate terms

      Well, if you live like a Eurapaean and throw your hands to the top in any war, then I am sincerely sorry for you ...
      We did not lose the war, as the liberast thinks, we were really betrayed by the top in the person of Humpback, as evidenced by the "democratic" 90s.
      So your defense of an outright traitor looks very suspicious sad
      1. x917nt
        x917nt 16 March 2018 07: 08
        0
        Quote: Rurikovich
        So your defense of an outright traitor looks very suspicious

        Is there really any judicial verdict regarding Gorbachev’s actions? Announce it, please.
        1. Rurikovich
          Rurikovich 16 March 2018 07: 16
          +6
          Quote: x917nt
          Is there any judicial verdict regarding Gorbachev's actions?

          There is something that the West does not know in the assessment of actions - honor, conscience and moral soldier
          And with court verdicts in The Hague or Strasbourg, they will clearly explain to you how to judge correctly in the right direction wink
    2. Volodin
      16 March 2018 07: 06
      +8
      You have mixed cause and effect relationships. At first there was a drain of national interests, and only then (precisely for this reason) the resulting defeat in the Cold War.
      1. x917nt
        x917nt 16 March 2018 08: 00
        0
        Your reasoning is similar to an amateurish analysis of a chess game lost to a grandmaster by an amateur chess player with checkmate on move 10.
        "- And the fool can see now that he should have walked with a horse! Then just a couple more moves before checkmate could have been made!"
        You simply forget that in addition to Gorbachev, other interested international forces and parties also participated in those processes. Interested in a profitable for yourself development of events. And these parties' positions for dictating conditions were many times stronger.
        So checkmate on move 12 is no better than checkmate on move 10.
        1. Doliva63
          Doliva63 16 March 2018 19: 03
          +8
          Quote: x917nt
          You simply forget that in addition to Gorbachev, other interested international forces and parties participated in those processes. Interested in a favorable development of events. And these parties' positions for dictating conditions were many times stronger.

          Stronger than the Union there was no one on the world stage then, do not smack nonsense.
          1. x917nt
            x917nt 16 March 2018 19: 38
            0
            Aha ... we would have given them more! if they caught up with us ...
    3. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 16 March 2018 07: 20
      +9
      Quote: x917nt
      The loser in the war is not supposed to dictate conditions. We must remember this and stop blaming Gorbachev for some kind of betrayal.

      Who lost? About yourself INTO? Or a relative of the humpback? "stop blaming"? What!
      The USSR did not lose the war! An anti-coup took place in the USSR! If anyone does not understand!
      1. x917nt
        x917nt 16 March 2018 08: 12
        +1
        Quote: Reptiloid
        And who lost?

        OVD lost to NATO. Outright. Capitulating without firing a shot. Moreover, all ATS allies went over to the enemy's side. Without coercion, threats and violence. And the one on whom this OVD was supported disappeared altogether from the political map of the world.
        1. Mordvin 3
          Mordvin 3 16 March 2018 09: 46
          +3
          Quote: x917nt
          OVD lost to NATO. Outright. Surrendering without firing a shot. Moreover, all ATS allies went over to the enemy's side. Without coercion, threats and violence.

          Tell it to the Serbs.
          1. x917nt
            x917nt 16 March 2018 09: 53
            0
            Who are they?
            1. Reptiloid
              Reptiloid 16 March 2018 11: 15
              +3
              Quote: x917nt
              Who are they?

              And these are those who besides us broke the German-Austrians!
              1. x917nt
                x917nt 16 March 2018 13: 09
                0
                Serbs broke into someone ?? Are you confusing anything? They have been fighting for 100 years from one genocide to another.
        2. alatanas
          alatanas 16 March 2018 15: 38
          +3
          Gorbachev did not ask his allies about the ATS and CMEA, he handed everything back when he met at (more precisely about) about. Malta.
    4. Mordvin 3
      Mordvin 3 16 March 2018 09: 43
      +8
      Quote: x917nt
      The loser in the war is not supposed to dictate conditions. We must remember this and stop blaming Gorbachev for some kind of betrayal.

      Misha the tourist did not lose the war. He, along with the top, just passed everything.
      Quote: x917nt
      Is there really any judicial verdict regarding Gorbachev’s actions?

      And when were the winners judged?
    5. Luga
      Luga 16 March 2018 12: 33
      +7
      Quote: x917nt
      The loser in the war is not supposed to dictate conditions. We must remember this and stop blaming Gorbachev for some kind of betrayal.

      The USSR was not defeated. Reforms were needed, similar to those conducted by Alexander II, but Alexander held power firmly, all processes were initiated from above and controlled with an iron hand. And Gorbachev launched an avalanche-like process, delegating all reform initiatives and reform control "down", instead of fully strengthening his own power and slowly but consistently conducting own life reform ideas. And did he have any ideas? It seems to me very vague - he himself did not know exactly what he wanted. And when everything went to pieces, he was taken aback. He had no political will and decisiveness, a miserable "bargaining of the loser" began, although not everything was lost yet. In any case, as a result of his actions, much more was lost. And he, weak, cowardly and not smart, hoped for concessions to satisfy the "partners", which ultimately destroyed the country and secured an eternal (and well-deserved) anathema.
      I join in cursing him and expressing contempt for everyone who is trying to justify him. Twice in the twentieth century. Russia in an era of ripening change at the helm became an absolutely insignificant ruler. It would be nice if it were a simple bad luck that would end sooner or later.
      1. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid 16 March 2018 14: 31
        +5
        An interesting figure is Gorbachev's associate A.N. Yakovlev. He was an enemy of imperialism, exposed, wrote books. Ardent Communist! For example "" From Truman to Reagan "". Gorbachev made him a member of the Politburo and his closest adviser. Somehow, quickly from a communist, this foreman of perestroika turned into Judas. "" Republics - real independence "", "" Not a union state, but a union of independent states "," "Multiparty system, and the complete rejection of the CPSU from the monopoly on power" "," "Large loans from the West" "," " Military reform (drive out the generals, put lieutenant colonels in their place, begin the withdrawal of troops from Eastern Europe) .............. "". Here are some tips! "" Gorbachev and Yakovlev, through perestroika, were breaking not only communism, but also the millennial model of Russian history. They and others like them fought not against communism and the USSR, but also against Russia and the Russian spirit. "" Something like this was said in one of the interviews and also in Yakovlev's memoirs, which appeared not so long ago.
  4. victorsh
    victorsh 16 March 2018 06: 55
    +3
    This is one and in my opinion the main reason why the army did not support the GKChP. WE DID NOT BELIEVE to anyone from the leadership of the USSR. Do you remember the "events" in Tbilisi? 19-year-old paratrooper 3 (three) km. Ran after 70-year-old grandmother that - "slash" her sap. with a blade! And they believed. And Gorbachev said: I did NOT give such an order! "I handed over" the army to the fullest.
    1. Doliva63
      Doliva63 16 March 2018 19: 10
      +8
      "This is one and, in my opinion, the main reason why the army did not support the Emergency Committee. WE DID NOT BELIEVE anyone from the leadership of the USSR."
      Scales, sorry. The army should not support / not support anyone, it should follow orders. Our people then divided - 80% of the order to restore order were ready to carry out with enthusiasm, 20% - without it, but would have done it. Alas, there was no order.
  5. zulusuluz
    zulusuluz 16 March 2018 07: 19
    +4
    you can listen to the Americans, of course, but let's think together: if everything goes to the fact that Germany is really uniting, the Warsaw Treaty Organization is being dismantled, then you can reasonably raise the question that the military blocs should be completely abolished
    The French had people with a ridge and intelligence ... Once upon a time.
    1. Grigory_78
      Grigory_78 April 16 2018 16: 23
      0
      Abolished now as completely unnecessary for the sexually disoriented.
  6. parusnik
    parusnik 16 March 2018 07: 35
    +4
    It turned out to be "decent" laughing on word laughing believed ...
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 16 March 2018 08: 31
      +4
      Quote: parusnik
      It turned out to be "decent" laughing on word laughing believed ...

      Well, yes, well, yes ... One decent scoundrel believed other decent scoundrels
  7. Operator
    Operator 16 March 2018 08: 52
    +4
    What is the bazaar about? The oral agreements and understandings set forth in the correspondence in international law do not work from the word at all.

    If the President of the USSR did not fix these agreements in an official international treaty, then he is a state criminal and is subject to the application of the highest measure under applicable law. Point.
    1. Alex_59
      Alex_59 16 March 2018 11: 59
      +5
      Quote: Operator
      What is the bazaar about? The oral agreements and understandings set forth in the correspondence in international law do not work from the word at all.
      If the President of the USSR did not fix these agreements in an official international treaty, then he is a state criminal and is subject to the application of the highest measure under applicable law.

      This naivety is killing me. That is, you (and all others, too) think that if Gorbachev concluded a legally certified treaty with the West in which NATO obligated itself not to expand, then this would not really happen?
      This is very funny. Agreements of this kind are observed between actually (and not formally) equal partners. With the USSR, they concluded and complied with treaties like SALT, ABM, and strategic offensive arms only because the USSR could actually destroy the United States and European countries. The only way. Until the USSR could really stand up for itself, they didn’t conclude and didn’t comply. And as soon as the USSR (and then the Russian Federation) lost the opportunity to stand up for itself, the treaties began to be violated, and then completely terminated. Do you want to be sure that the contract will not be violated? Do not seem, but be strong, equal in strength to your opponent.
      Sadly, it is. Please note that the United States does not have any serious agreements with China, but does not allow itself to wipe its feet on the Chinese. The United States has serious treaties with Russia on strategic offensive arms and INF, but all who can wipe their feet on Russia. This is because the PRC has an economy equal to the American one, a firm distinct policy without any reverence towards democracy, and a rapidly growing military power. This is valid without any contract.
      1. Operator
        Operator 16 March 2018 17: 41
        +1
        Do you really believe that the United States has violated at least one treaty with the USSR or the Russian Federation on the reduction / limitation of strategic arms, troops and weapons in Europe, missile defense, medium and short-range missiles during the period of these treaties (with the exception of violation of the INF Treaty in part placement in Europe of American silos of the KRSD)?
  8. BAI
    BAI 16 March 2018 09: 49
    +6
    Misha was not bred as a sucker, he himself was glad to be deceived. And pay us.
  9. antivirus
    antivirus 16 March 2018 09: 52
    +5
    to allow such an opportunity as a mutually beneficial mutual liquidation of military blocs:

    I BELIEVED THAT WE HAVE AGREED SO WHEN THE ATS DISCONTINUED.
    and the teddy bear tried on cowboy hats in front of Raisa Maximovna!
  10. Opera
    Opera 16 March 2018 10: 49
    +4
    I think the answer to the question about the activities of this honorary German is the same as the masses of other Germans from the partelite that has destroyed the country and doomed millions of people to death and miserable existence, so clear that there’s nothing to discuss here! As well as the activities of the Germans from the Komsomol of the highest and middle ranks! All of them led the fragments and fragments of the Red Empire! They became young reformers - democrats - liberals - fathers - sultans - caliphs ... Remember Taras Bulba asks the Jew Yankel, who saw Andrei at the Poles in gilded armor - "Why did he put on someone else's robe? - Because it’s better, because he put it on ... - Who forced him? - ..... he went over of his own free will? - Where did he go? - Moved to their side, he's already theirs! - You're lying, pig's ear! ... - So you want to say that he betrayed homeland and faith? ... "Yankel summed up all this with surprise and absolutely natural simplicity for himself - why betrayed, he’s just better there! That's the whole point! All THIS was very naturally born and lived in the late and near-late USSR. So he lived - so they were better!
    So it was the whole party elite and of course the Komsomol leaders who betrayed the Fatherland! And they did not have faith! What matters can be discussed here?!?! What is generally discussed in betrayal ?! Just to state - a traitor! Traitors! But how it came to this is a serious question! Wow!
  11. Des10
    Des10 16 March 2018 11: 08
    +3
    It’s disgusting to read about him.
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 16 March 2018 20: 02
      +5
      No matter how disgusting it is ---- but you have to read and speak. Now is such a time, the history of the USSR is getting fucked up. And this is the life of our parents, grandfathers, great-grandfathers. And about the hunchback --- silence, and they praise the drunk. Yes, here’s Stolypin every night, they praise drunkards ...
      NATO was created in 1949 "" to contain the threat from the East "" The East created the ATS in 1955 to deter the threat. And suddenly the parties announced that they were no longer enemies. 7-8.11.91. NATO leaders in Rome announced their intention to partner with the states of Central and Eastern Europe. They talked about friendship. If the ATS disbanded, NATO, on the contrary, in Rome adopted a NEW STRATEGIC CONCEPT of NATO, taking into account the changes ????.
      It turns out that there is no enemy. And why keep up to 20000 tanks, 10000 combat aircraft and helicopters. At the Rome meeting, the question of reducing the power of NATO to the Soviet level was not even raised. After 3 years, as the USSR was gone, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic were invited to NATO. The process of "drang nach Osten" began and NATO received the entire military infrastructure of these countries at its disposal --- 500 combat aircraft, 50 ships, about 3000 tanks, more than 5000 artillery pieces.
  12. nivander
    nivander 16 March 2018 11: 09
    +2
    wears the same earth
  13. komrad buh
    komrad buh 16 March 2018 13: 47
    +1
    Judas and no other words
  14. NF68
    NF68 16 March 2018 15: 49
    +2
    It must be assumed that Gorbachev did not "cheapen" by selling his country and his people to the west. I wonder if in world history something similar to what Gorbachev did? Or are all the others on a scale clearly missed by Misha’s tagged?
    1. Doliva63
      Doliva63 16 March 2018 19: 15
      +5
      In any case, I do not know in history a single person who would, on his own initiative, give power to the 1 / 6 of the globe. Such people usually cannot get this power - their place in the madhouse.
  15. NF68
    NF68 16 March 2018 20: 56
    +2
    Quote: Doliva63
    In any case, I do not know in history a single person who would, on his own initiative, give power to the 1 / 6 of the globe. Such people usually cannot get this power - their place in the madhouse.


    A tagged one somehow began to steer this 1 / 6 and right now it is still trying to say something occasionally.
  16. 16112014nk
    16112014nk 16 March 2018 21: 43
    +1
    The cook (former combine operator M.S.Gorbachev) failed to manage the state. It is so easy to give up power and destroy such a country - in the foreseeable future, such a figure is unlikely to appear.
  17. VladGashek
    VladGashek 16 March 2018 23: 33
    +2
    MiSeGorby is a talent. To be able to destroy the Soviet Union in 5 years, no one in history with any power could do this. And the hunchback did it. This is talent, but with a minus sign. To pull such an imbecile to the top of power, that was the genius move of Andropov and the personnel officers of the Central Committee of the CPSU. All the author's arguments do not reflect reality, when a handful of opportunists, moral monsters and intellectual degenerates climbed to power in the country. Conclusion: how important it is to have sane and responsible people in power, not like Zhirinovsky, sobchak or saraykin.
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 17 March 2018 06: 44
      +1
      The processes in the power of the USSR that led to its destruction began in the 60s of the last century. Hunchback --- not talent, but the tip of the iceberg.
      1. Opera
        Opera 17 March 2018 08: 32
        0
        The process was initiated in 1917!
      2. Monarchist
        Monarchist 17 March 2018 13: 30
        +1
        Almost everything is so, but a small clarification: similar processes of "decomposition and degeneration" began even earlier, when membership in the party began to turn around with certain benefits. Take the period of the Civil War: party membership was guaranteed death and not always fast. There are many examples in history. And as soon as the RCP (B.) Has turned into a "leading and directing" and membership in the party sharply increases. Mikoyan and the Kremlin wrote about this, and in 1941 how many such “party” tickets got rid of party tickets, and as soon as Hitler got the “tail into the meat grinder” and again the herds jumped into the party, and after the State Emergency Committee public tickets were burned, comrades, remember such shots on TV?
        Who are: Kravchuk, Shushkevich, Egom Timurovich, Poroshenko, uhBurbulis and drg "democrats"? ALL come from the Komsomol and the Communist Party
  18. Brigadier
    Brigadier 17 March 2018 00: 21
    +1
    Tagged, Chubais, Medvedev, Kudrin, Nabiullina, Gref and others, others, others ... They are all from the same deck ... Under the wing of "their" president. Because they are "untouchable"!
    He needs them ... But do Russia need them? Obviously not needed, because they are on a par with labeled ones!
    EVERYONE VOTES FOR BREAST !!!
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid 17 March 2018 06: 39
      +1
      And with whom is Grudinin, the owner of more and more foreign accounts, in the same row?
      And why do not all left parties support him?
      1. Opera
        Opera 17 March 2018 08: 36
        0
        With Lenin, Trotsky, Bukharin, Zinoviev ... Khrushchev, Gorbachev, Yeltsin! Although he went even further with Zyuganov, he is not a communist at all!
  19. Comrade
    Comrade 17 March 2018 03: 26
    +2
    Last year, Gorbachev gave benefits in Canada, rode around major cities. A ticket for Gorbachev cost 200 dollars, to have dinner with him (yes, there was such an option) at one table - 900 dollars. And this, even the former, but the head of the Soviet Union. No honor, no dignity. Clown, one word.
  20. Mamka pula
    Mamka pula 17 March 2018 21: 28
    +16
    Misha labeled will not be justified
  21. mgero
    mgero April 3 2018 16: 29
    -1
    "] it is interesting that the peace-loving Gorbachev is more negatively assessed by compatriots than Comrade Stalin"
    Vi kak mojete sravnit etix Ljudej? Stalin spas rasiju bukvalnom smisle slovo a mechenii ugrobil samuju silnuju stranu!