America’s Great Lie. Europe’s Great Shame. Russia’s Great Case.

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at

The West owes Russia a hell of a lot; but what it owes Russia first is a deep apology, and a welcome into Europe, of which Russia has been and is an extremely important nation, and very unjustly denied its rightful place there. What doesn’t belong in Europe is the U.S., not in any way whatsoever, especially since the U.S. is now a dictatorship. (Anyone who says it’s not a dictatorship and who doesn’t click onto that link to find out that he’s been snookered to think it’s still a democracy, should just stop reading here right now, because this article is going to be suitable only for people with open, critical, inquiring minds — not for closed-minded or stupid readers.)

Why does America’s anti-Russia military club NATO still exist, after the Soviet Union’s equivalent Warsaw Pact disbanded in 1991 when the Soviet Union and its communism voluntarily ended?

NATO is nothing but America’s anti-Russia military club, against Russia and against any nation (such as Iraq, or Libya, or Syria) that supports Russia.

We killed Gaddafi in Libya because he supported Russia in international relations. We produced the failed state and jihadist mayhem that now exists there; we destroyed Libya and now the refugees from there are flooding into Europe, along with the refugees from our attacks to bring down Assad in Syria.

We overthrew (via a bloody coup and no ‘democratic revolution’ such as the West lies to assert) Yanukovych in Ukraine allegedly because he turned down the EU’s offer to Ukraine after learning that the price-tag for Ukrainians would be $160 billion if Ukraine were to comply with the EU’s demands. But the U.S. was already organizing the coup against him starting a year before the coup, and nine months before Yanukovych turned down the EU’s offer.

We are trying to overthrow Assad in Syria because he supports Russia in international relations.

This isn’t bullying?

This is ‘democracy’?

This is dictatorship: totalitarianism in the West, against Russia and any other nation that isn’t buckling to the U.S. aristocracy and its allied aristocracies in Europe, and (especially with the new bellicose nationalistic Abe government), also in Japan.

This is ugly.

This can’t be published in Western major ‘news’ media: it is samizdat, in the Western dictatorships, but it is all demonstrably true, nonetheless.

Here is how it started — the original sin of the post-Cold-War West, which has produced the problems of today and the future:

Let’s start with the results of a 2009 investigation by Germany’s Spiegel, or Mirror, magazine, which is a mainstream German news site, that’s a bit more honest than America’s equivalents:

They headlined, very directly: “NATO’s Eastward Expansion: Did the West Break Its Promise to Moscow?”

They identified what that “promise” was, which Russia claims was violated, and which Spiegel  was investigating: “that NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe violated commitments made during the negotiations over German reunification.” The next sentence in Spiegel’s  report states unequivocally their conclusion: “Newly discovered documents from Western archives support the Russian position.”

The question Spiegel’s  article discusses isn’t whether NATO’s continued existence is an evil, but instead whether NATO should have extended eastward up to Russia’s own borders — whether, to make this matter quite clear now, if the USSR had won, and its Warsaw Pact and not NATO had continued (though neither should have continued), the Warsaw Pact should have extended itself all the way to including Mexico and/or Canada? 

How would the American people have felt about that possibility — nuclear missiles aimed against them at their own border?  It’s so obviously disgusting (vile, actually — and what was John F. Kennedy determined to do if the USSR had placed nuclear missiles in Cuba?), but do you learn in Western ‘news’ media that this is what the United States has done and is doing to Russia, and to Russia’s allies?

Here is how even Spiegel  concluded that the West lies about this history, though  Spiegel  is itself a Western mainstream medium and so avoids saying it outright that directly, and instead veils the truth so that only the few people with brains and open minds will get the important point:

Spiegel  makes clear that their investigation of the actual paper record shows that the then merely West German side, which was negotiating reunification of Germany with the then merely Eastern half of Germany, is exactly in accord with what Russia’s allegations have been saying all along, and exactly the opposite of what West Germany’s Foreign Minister then, Hans Dietrich Genscher, has been asserting to have been the case. Here is how we learn this from Spiegel:

Jack Matlock, the US ambassador in Moscow at the time, has said in the past that Moscow was given a “clear commitment.” Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the German foreign minister in 1990, says this was precisely not the case.

After speaking with many of those involved and examining previously classified British and German documents in detail, SPIEGEL has concluded that there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question for countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia.

On Feb. 10, 1990, between 4 and 6:30 p.m., Genscher spoke with Shevardnadze. According to to the German record of the conversation, which was only recently declassified, Genscher said: “We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east.” And because the convers[at]ion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: “As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general.”

Never does Spiegel  state outright that Genscher was lying; but, an intelligent person recognizes that if “the non-expansion of NATO … applies in general,” then the promise made was excluding any eastward expansion of NATO at all. Not only “NATO will not expand to the east,” but NATO will not expand. How much clearer can it be than that?

In other words: Genscher lies when he says that there was no “clear commitment.”

For some reason, Russian officials don’t accuse the West of having “lied.” Perhaps they feel that it would only exacerbate relations even further than the West itself has already done by its constant lying. However, wouldn’t it be better for the confrontation to come upon the battlefield of truth, than upon the battlefield of war?

The U.S. and its allies have been lying through their teeth in order not only to continue NATO, but to extend it up to Russia’s borders — in other words: for conquest.

For more about this key historical reality, the reader can click here, to see that there’s lots more than just the record disproving Genscher’s lies, but especially the record disproving the lies by U.S. officials.

Let me then summarize that here: George Herbert Walker Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev were the principals (Bush for the U.S. aristocracy; Gorbachev for the populations of the Soviet Union). Genscher and James Baker and Eduard Shevardnadze, etc. were merely agents; and Bush had his agents lie to Gorbachev’s agents, to say that NATO would not expand at all eastward. But he then, only later, instructed them not to follow through on what they had said, not to behave truthfully — but instead to set things up so as to allow the U.S. military alliance to extend right up to Russia’s borders. Here is how he instructed them to perform in this shameful (and potentially catastrophic) manner in private:

West German transcripts from the two leaders’ February 24–25 summit at Camp David show [that] Bush made his feelings about compromising with Moscow clear to Kohl: ‘To hell with that!’ he said. ‘We prevailed, they didn’t.’… In April, Bush spelled out this thinking in a confidential telegram to French President François Mitterrand… Bush was making it clear to Mitterrand that the dominant security organization in a post–Cold War Europe had to remain NATO.

The puppetmaster, Bush, sprung upon Kohl and Mitterrand the instruction for them to just keep up the lie, but that it would be  a lie. They had believed what they had said when they said it, but were now instructed not to fulfill on it. What they had said would be a lie; they were instructed about this, only after they had said what they had believed to be true. From that point on, the anti-Russia thrust of the U.S. aristocracy, which controls the aristocracies (such as Europe’s) that are its allies, was clear; and the only way to disobey would be to become blackballed and trashed. Their careers would have been destroyed if they had disobeyed Bush.

Both in my own article there, and in the Spiegel  one, the ancillary questions, such as why this promise had never been made in writing (though Gorbachev wanted it to be), are also discussed. However, something should be pointed out here regarding the Spiegel  article, namely that Gorbachev’s Foreign Minister Shevardnadze was also shown there to be lying to Spiegel’s  reporters, and not noted there to have been lying to them. Shevardnadze, “speaking in the Georgian capital Tbilisi, says that there were no such assurances from the West.” In other words: he told, to Spiegel, a thing that was contradicting what Spiegel  found in their own examination of Genscher’s papers from the period of the negotiations. Genscher had been negotiating then with Shevardnadze, and according to Genscher’s papers, Shevardnadze had indeed been informed by Genscher that NATO wouldn’t expand, at all. What Shevardnadze’s motive was for this, is not known, and Spiegel’s  reporters didn’t even bring up to Shevardnadze the fact that what he was telling them was in direct contradiction of the written record. (Perhaps Shevardnadze, now retired after having become Georgia’s President, was hoping in 2009 to be favorably viewed by aristocrats in the West. Keeping up the lie would have fit for that purpose. But, even if he had been asked, he wouldn’t have given that explanation.)

George Herbert Walker’s having instructed his agents to lie and to avoid any signed treaty on this crucial historical matter, was the West’s Original Sin.

Europe’s remaining allied with the U.S. and participating in NATO, especially after having been instructed by America to lie, and to have deceived Gorbachev, who behaved honorably throughout and afterward, is Europe’s great shame.

And truth is Russia’s great case.

The U.S. is, in fact, Europe’s enemy — not merely Russia’s enemy. Not merely the truth’s enemy. Not merely democracy’s enemy.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in Business / Economics, General, Media, Politics / World News, propaganda, Science / Technology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Tannenhouser

    I don’t always agree with you Eric. I do however agree on this matter. Get ready this one is gonna disturb a hole bunch of rocks and the things that live beneath them. Good Day.

    • mulga mumblebrain

      The leaders of the West have always been evil, greedy, arrogant predators. Nothing about them has changed for 500 years but the methods they use to exploit the rest of humanity.

      • Tannenhouser

        I think the methods are the same, it’s the tech to do so that has. You are right though. One of the thought memes I use when talking with people is that “nothing’s changed since the 1600’s except sanitation and the ‘bells and whistles’ of control” Good Day.

  • guest

    Twenty five years ago I never would have dreamed a KGB colonel would rise to become…the least of the evils.

    • Sovereigntea

      Nor that the Russian media would become more factually accurate and more truthful than the garbage the masses are fed in the West.

  • wunsacon

    Eric, I haven’t read Bernie Sanders’ voting record. IIRC, you say you have. Based on your reading, should we expect a President Sanders to do anything about this?

    • cettel

      Not only (on balance) his voting record (and no Senator has been better on this, though that’s not saying much), but, very clearly, his assertions during this campaign, where he is emphatic that ‘defense’ spending must be re-prioritized to focus more on the VA and more on killing jihadists, and less on the existing emphasis and structure, which he says is a hold-over from the Cold War and no longer is valid. He always stops short of directly criticizing Obama’s foreign policies, because he knows that in Congress the only people who are doing that are Republicans and conservative Democrats, and he won’t support any of their legislative proposals, all of which are hard-line ‘Cold War.’ What seems significant to me is his clarity that the jihadist threat is #1 (after, perhaps climate change, and he makes a poor case on that — he is scandalously deficient in his attention to foreign policy, and this results partially from his never even having thought seriously about running for President until it became clear that Elizabeth Warren wouldn’t).

      In other words: he would, as President, re-prioritize toward: less spending overall on the military, and especially on less spending against Russia and its allies. He would focus instead on health care for veterans, and on killing jihadists. And, of course, on countering global warming.

      As far as global warming is concerned, he’s ignorant of the fact that the recent 5-year-long record drought in Syria (and to a lesser extent in the Middle East generally) produced the Arab Spring and especially the anti-Assad demonstrations in 2011. He is woefully ignorant about international affairs. Like I said: he hadn’t intended to be running for President. Even though a strong case can be made that global warming poses a national security threat globally, he doesn’t know the case. It’s very sad. But that’s the fact.

      • wunsacon

        Thanks, Eric. I know you’re “the messenger” here and doing me a favor by summarizing one part of Bernie’s platform, taking time from your research and writing activities (which I enjoy reading and believe I learn from). But, as for the message itself, I’m disappointed with what I’m hearing.

        >> he is emphatic that ‘defense’ spending must be re-prioritized to focus
        more on the VA and more on killing jihadists, and less on the existing
        emphasis and structure, which he says is a hold-over from the Cold War
        and no longer is valid.

        I’ve seen allegations that he’s voted for every defense bill. Is that
        true? If it is, then he’s not been voting his alleged platform. But, for me, the spending is secondary to policy. As for that policy…

        …Sorry, but this sounds like a variation of a common meme. Every politician and general tells us we need to spend our ‘defense’ dollars wisely and not “fighting the last war”. But, just like Obama saying Iraq was a “dumb” war, saying “we have to get smart with our defense dollars” does not begin to question the policies themselves.

        Obama, too, refers to killing jihadists but his actions seemingly help create them to further other goals. Bernie’s words could just as easily come from the most violent leaders of our political class.

        >> He always stops short of directly criticizing Obama’s foreign policies,

        Since the policies are the problem, I’m disappointed to hear you confirm this. Is there a good explanation? You describe one:

        >> because he knows that in Congress the only people who are doing that are Republicans and conservative Democrats, and he won’t support any of their legislative proposals, all of which are hard-line ‘Cold War.’

        For me, that explanation is inadequate.

        So far, from what you’re writing here, I infer a Sanders administration will do
        little to stem seemingly merciless and senseless foreign policy.

        I need to see Bernie align himself with the likes of Reps Tulsi Gabbard
        (D-HI) and Austin Scott (R-GA). Otherwise, I’m voting for Jill Stein.

        Yes, I’m becoming a “one issue” voter. I don’t care nearly as much about economic problems as I do about immoral killing on an industrial scale. For me, Bernie’s ideas about education and health care and the oligarchy are secondary.

        • wunsacon

          I just found this Bernie quote:

          >> “there is no debate about the horrors of chemical warfare or the ruthless nature of the Assad regime”

          His judgment here seems premature and is “all too familiar”. For all his years of living and observing “history as it’s being made”, I expect more from him.

          I can’t vote for him.

          • mulga mumblebrain

            Sanders is the geriatric version of the Obama ‘Hope’ long-con.

          • cettel

            What you have cited is consistent with the way I characterized Sanders. He won’t directly contradict the Democratic President, but he clearly states that jihadism poses a far greater national-security threat than Russia does.

            For you to say “I can’t vote for him” against Rubio or whomever the Republicans nominate, is for you to let everyone else choose, and for you to have no role, in selecting between Rubio or etc, versus Sanders (if Sanders gets the Democratic nomination).

            That is for you to allege that there isn’t anything worth choosing between there. I did not agree with that viewpoint when the choice was between George W. Bush and Al Gore; and I think that the view you are expressing now is no more intelligent than was the view from Nader voters in 2000.

            If the Democratic nominee turns out to be Clinton and she’s running then against Rubio, then a case can be made that they are a toss-up and no real choice, especially because Hillary’s record shows her to be a lying sell-out and neo-con, even a promoter of Victoria Nuland.

            However, it the Democratic nominee turns out to be Sanders, then there will be a very real choice, and only fools and ignoramuses won’t at least want to register what theirs is.

            You are looking not for a candidate’s priorities, but for some supposed ‘positions.’ You are considering those ‘positions’ outside of the context of the political contest. You are presuming that selecting a much better candidate is pointless if it isn’t selecting the perfect candidate. It’s simply unintelligent, like voting for Nader in 2000.

          • wunsacon

            >> You are presuming that selecting a much better candidate is pointless if it isn’t selecting the perfect candidate.

            From reading your words and Bernie’s words, rather than “much better” it’s actually “more of the same” that Obama gave us. Which is the same that McCain and Romney would’ve given us.

            >> is for you to let everyone else choose, and for you to have no role

            Yet, if I were to buy the (ultimately self-defeating) argument of “vote for the alleged lesser of two evils” despite concluding for myself that the magnitude of evil is the same, I would implicitly let *you* choose for me and thereby again give myself “no role” anyway. Hmm….

            No, I don’t think so.

            It’s not me who’ll be wasting my vote, Eric. It’s you.

      • Rollo10

        Perhaps if you Yanks stopped bombing the shit out of ME nations, we wouldn’t have jihadists? As for ‘Global Warming’ this is just another Al Gore fraud to extract money from people, by way of taxation. The next President should concentrate on breaking up the Fed and Corporations, supporting local Businesses and rebuilding infrastructure, producing much needed jobs. Get rid of AIPAC and start making friends around the world!

  • Millard J Melnyk

    Excellent article Eric. Thank you.

    • A.Alexander

      Ukrainian for Russia – the great teme.

      • Millard J Melnyk

        I don’t subscribe to teams, parties, nations, or any other form of authoritarian groupthink. It’s all got to go, along with the fear-mongering that divides us in order to make us conquerable. We need to stop playing their game.

    • Sky Wanderer

      I agree, excellent article, just like the former one on the Paris Attacks.
      I wish to share a link to a blog here, hoping it helps uncovering the truth on related topics
      “#ParisAttacks, ‘911 of Europe’: the catalytic event to boost colonising wars and police terror”

  • berger friedrich-wolfgang

    As “Veterans” Today Reveals in the Article “Who was really killing Paris and Why” , the Comment-Section identifies the Khazarian CRIF as ROTHSCHILD’S FFL( French Foreign Legion) !!!

    • wunsacon

      “Broken” link, FYI.

      • berger friedrich-wolfgang

        Thanks !!!

        • Ludvig

          Check out on this important documentary on You Tube: Princes of the Yen: Central Bank truth Documentary 🙂

  • A.Alexander

    This is RT,I don`t read RT.

  • November 10th, 2015 Reckless US/NATO Saber-Rattling

    When lunatics run the asylum, all bets are off. America can’t bear the thought of other rising powers challenging its unipolarity – so much so, it appears willing to risk humanity’s destruction to maintain sole dominance of planet earth, its resources and populations.

  • APRIL 02, 2014 NATO Plans Global Dominance NATO Plans Global Dominance

    NATO was established in April 1949. It’s a US imperial tool. It’s been this way from inception. Washington provides the lion’s share of funding. It’s around 75%. Claiming a NATO “political and military alliance for peace and security” doesn’t wash. It never did. It’s polar opposite truth. NATO’s mission is offense, not defense.

    Mar 2, 2015 Relooking Europe: The Role of Land Forces

    Please join us for a discussion with COL Foster about the future of land forces in Europe and the role of the 173rd Airborne Brigade going forward. The discussion will cover a range of issues and current events facing USAREUR, the 173rd Airborne Brigade’s mission as part of OPERATION ATLANTIC RESOLVE, joint exercises with European allies, and the brigade’s upcoming training mission in Ukraine.

  • Rollo10

    This has nothing to do with ‘Russian Relations’ – Gaddafi, like Saddam, was taken out because he wanted to move all African Oil / Mineral sales to a Gold backed Dinar, while Saddam was selling his Oil in Euros. Assad has also given the US the middle finger, he refused them their pipeline, from Qatar to Turkey and eventually Europe, and he also refuses to use the US Dollar to sell his oil! It’s all part of their [US] Yinon plan for a Greater Israel! The US still bang on about ‘dictator’ Assad, using the old Goebbels adage, ‘tell a lie long enough, people will believe it’, First came the [False Flag] massacre at Houla There were 15 Evidence witnesses that the US chosen UN committee, failed to use? This was followed the next year by another False Flag, possibly by Turkey, in the ‘gassing of Assad’s people’, Something still related to today, but the truth, though known by UN, is seldom if ever, mentioned! The ‘ruse’ discovered by UK’s own ‘Porton Down’ Laboratory.