Talk:Baker-Gorbachev Negotiations

Non-neutral approach of this alleged agreement?

I begin by wondering what this article is even doing here. It was created less than 48 hours ago, clearly driven by WP:RECENTISM as a result of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. It tells of an alleged informal agreement between the US Secretary of State and the President of the Soviet Union (yes, still the Soviet Union, not Russia) which, apparently, was never put in writing and signed and made public for everyone to see. It could only be discovered recently, apparently through unclassified documents which display a conversation between those two guys. One can immediately begin to wonder about the relevance of an informal conversation between the US and the USSR to justify the alleged prohibition on all the countries east of Germany (which were never consulted on this matter) from ever joining NATO (which was also never consulted), a prohibition which has been attempted to be enforced by Vladimir Putin (President of Russia, a country which didn't even exist at the time of this alleged agreement), who has used the non-compliance of the alleged pact as justification for the abhorrent and murderous ongoing invasion. Yet this hurriedly-created article has already been used to justify at least two controversial edits, here and here, both already reverted.

Having said that, this article paints the picture that there was a blatant and unjustified disobedience and breach by the West of a legitimate agreement made for NATO not to expand its borders eastward. But, upon more investigation, I have found that there is more to this story: the real agreement that was actually written and signed and made public was actually the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (a.k.a. 2+4 Agreement), which does not mention the idea of a non-NATO-enlargement, as can be read in Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany#Eastward expansion of NATO, a section which goes to the point of saying that Gorbachev recognised that the issue was not discussed and that Russia and NATO signed a treaty recognising the right of all countries to pursue their own desired military alliances (which can be read here, at the NATO website); furthermore, one of the sources in that section plainly calls the idea a 'myth'.

In conclusion, should this article even be here? It seems to have never been deemed sufficiently relevant for anyone to add it to Wikipedia before the invasion, its historical foundations and relevance are questionable, it serves as grounds for the defence of the Russian position of attacking Ukraine, and editing about historical events while clearly motivated by current affairs seems unreasonable in light of Wikipedia's policy. If the article is to remain, should it be somehow rewritten, given its apparent bias (especially when that bias is in favour of Russia and its current invasion of Ukraine)?

@Patrickneil: You were one of those who reverted those controversial edits, having provided the explanation that the pact is 'not historically significant'. What do you think about the issues I have brought up? LongLivePortugal (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I very much agree, this is not a real thing. Like there is no text we could put on Wikisource as the "Baker-Gorbachev Pact". So yes, I think it needs to be nominated for deletion, and maybe editors can make the case there as to why this article needs to exist. I also agree that it's creation now is likely because of the idea that "NATO" or "Western countries" made some sort of secret promise that NATO would never expand has been increasingly a feature of Russian propaganda in the last decade, and obviously in a major way during the last week. I realize it's an attractive, potent myth, but it's just not based in any sort of history. I've discussed it many times on the Talk:Enlargement of NATO page (and see an ongoing discussion at Talk:NATO), so imagine we'll unfortunately get to rehash these arguments again and again in the next few weeks. Patrick Neil, _oѺ^∞/Talk 16:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I created this article because it is relevant to understand a current conflict. I have been editing for more than 10 years, I'm not a Russian bot. And first I did a lot of digging, because, yes, it is used in Russia's current argumentation and I wanted to check what it's true and what it's not (propaganda). I have spent a great deal of time checking, and while it could be argued wether this was written or verbal, there is no doubt this conversations occured. I was surprised that given its current relevance there was no article on this in the Wiki, and, after checking sources, that some editors like you Patrick Neil use the word 'alleged' as if it doesn't exist when I have referenced the U.S. declassified memorandum that backs that it did!

As of the secrecy argument... really? A lot of pacts are not made public, that's not an argument. That is why documents are declassified, the very word says it. And this was a classified document of a meeting in which guarantees where made to Gorbachev by a U.S. top official James Baker. Jasandia (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2022 (CET)

U.S. declassified memo that backs this / Change of name in the article -not delition

I have used various different sources in the article that back the existance of this pact:

• Link by historian Mary Elise Sarotte: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russia-fsu/2014-08-11/broken-promise
• Link to Der Spiegel in 2022 (yes, very recently, and a non Russian propaganda media outlet) commenting on Russian documents that 'back' (according to the headline) the Russian claims yo mentioned https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nato-osterweiterung-aktenfund-stuetzt-russische-version-a-1613d467-bd72-4f02-8e16-2cd6d3285295
• And, most importantly, I have referenced the memorandum declassified by the US itself that confirms such promises by James Baker to Mikhail Gorbachev (uploaded along several other documents by George Washington University NSA Archive): https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16116-document-05-memorandum-conversation-between
• This US Government document desclassified in the NSA Archive is not the only one, there are several others that point out that perhaps Baker went to far making such promises, but they were made, and the US Goverment was aware of this and from then on some concern existed on the expansion. A full list of documents is in here, in case you want to complete (not delete) the article (the title of George Washington University NSA recopilaton, by the way, is: Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner). Link: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early

I could agree in changing the name of the article (I didn't use the word 'Agreement' and I was unsure whether to use 'Pact'). Perhaps this should be an article on 9, February 1900 Memorandum of Baker-Gorbachev conversation on OTAN enlargement or something like that. Nevertheless, when I named the article, I looked for other wikipedia articles on Pacts and saw that even an exchange of notes can become a pact (a pact is not always signed, which most certanly could become then a Treaty: pacts can even be verbal, or, as I said, a simple exchange of notes: see Pact of Cartagena.

Saying this is Russian Propaganda when I'm referencing the original declassified document doesn't hold as an argument. I think I have supplied enough sources and even concedeed a change in the name of the article. Jasandia (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2022 (CET)

Merge with Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany

So the final decision of mergins was erasing all of it, because the content of this page does not show at all in Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany Jasandia (talk) 9:05, 11 March 2022 (CET)

Progress could be made integrating the material if edit warring would cease. Anastrophe (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)