[JumpCrisscross]

> US made an agreement under George HW Bush that they would not extend the boundaries of the NATO area beyond West(!) Germany

This isn’t fully true. It’s been alleged. But Gorbachev has publicly admitted he has no memory of it. There were no agreements signed nor even public statements made backing it up. Which is strange since the U.S. and USSR did sign a memorandum on Germany’s reunification, in the context of which this supposed agreement was made.

All of which is irrelevant given Russia signed the Budapest memorandum in 1994, an actual treaty, not some secret handshake hocus pocus, which Putin is presently violating. So it’s weird for it to be waiving the flag of broken agreements.

[eukgoekoko]

> And the last point. NATO is the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe. If NATO is liquidated, there will be no such mechanism in Europe. We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.

taken from https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-...

[JumpCrisscross]

> We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.

This was a discussion in prelude to the signing of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany [1]. Baker's is a statement of understanding the "Soviet Union [and] other European countries'" position, not an agreement--not even the hint of one. None of it made it into the final Treaty. Lots of ideas were mooted and abandoned in that transcript; it's revisionist to fixate on that one. (As, again, Gorbachev himself publicly admitted.)

Also, immediately following that statement, Baker says that he does not "have the Germans’ agreement to this approach," and that what he has relayed is "an account of this approach," holding that "maybe something much better can be created." Two men discussing ideas in pursuit of an agreement, which was drafted days and signed months thereafter.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement...

[eukgoekoko]

You have claimed that "Gorbachev has publicly admitted he has no memory of it". This record of preliminary talks with Baker published by Gorbachev Foundation proves the opposite. There's no question this document has no legal bearing, but it's definitely more than just an allegation to say the US have fooled poor Gorbi.

[JumpCrisscross]

> This record of preliminary talks with Baker published by Gorbachev Foundation proves the opposite

The idea was discussed. Nobody disputes that. Gorbachev disputes there was agreement. A position the transcript supports.

It’s like if two people are negotiating a price; one says 5, the other acknowledges hearing five and proposes 3, and then they trade at 4. Twenty years later, one of their daughters calls foul because the buyer acknowledged hearing 5 but only paid 4. That is the imbecilic position this argument takes.

[eukgoekoko]

You're still missing my point: your claim about Gorbachov having no memories of NATO borders negotioations is false, the sole purpose of my comment was to debunk it. There's one thing I can agree with you though: this argument had really taken imbecilic position.

[JumpCrisscross]

> your claim about Gorbachov having no memories of NATO borders

No memory of an agreement, not of a discussion. Putin claims agreement. That is false.

[denton-scratch]

> Lots of ideas were mooted and abandoned in that transcript

Thanks for clarifying.

[itchyjunk]

Is UN supposed to enforce treaties? I suppose treaties aren't really legal contracts but some type of metal legal contract where nations themselves are legal persons? Is there a list of treaty breach being enforced in some way? I suppose sanctions are how they generally do it, right?

[denton-scratch]

International treaties generally set out on their face what remedies there are for violations. The WTO is often the forum for resolving problems with trade treaties. Multilateral treaties are often formed under UN auspices, so that (e.g.) the IMO regulates mulilateral maritime agreements.

But in general, I think the assumption is that parties enter into international treaties because both parties reckon the agreement to be a "win". I'm not aware of anyone ever trying to enforce a mutual-defence treaty - if you violate one of those, I think people just take it that the treaty is over.

There's no "international law", as such; there's just a web of agreements.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Is UN supposed to enforce treaties?

No. It’s supposed to “enforce” treaties signed under its auspices, but even that requires SC approval, which any member can veto.