Posted Originally on Oct 5, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
What is interesting is how the West has always dealt with Russia. They always LIE and have proven themselves outright untrustworthy. Not only did they sign a legally binding Minsk Agreement to allow the Donbas to vote on separating from Ukraine, but then they simply played Russia for a fool, with Merkel publicly admitting that they never intended to honor that agreement; they were buying time for Ukraine to build an army to obviously start this war.
The Minsk II agreement, formally known as the “Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements,” was signed on February 12, 2015. A separate Minsk Protocol (“Minsk I”) was signed on September 5, 2014.
Whether these agreements are legally binding remains highly contested and unresolved. No universal consensus exists on their legal status, and the answer depends heavily on which legal analysis or political position you consult. This is like going to a bank for a mortage and then claiming you never intended to actually make payments and the house is now yours.
The Case That They Are Legally Binding
Proponents of binding force, including Russia and China, argue that UN Security Council Resolution 2202 (2015), which “endorsed” the Package of Measures, elevated the agreements to a legally binding status under international law. This view holds that all UN member states are obligated to comply with Security Council resolutions. From this perspective, the Minsk agreements became the “only valid legal basis” for a settlement.
The Case That They Are Not Legally Binding
Opponents, including many Western legal scholars and Ukrainian officials, argue that Resolution 2202 was purely advisory and did not trigger the binding obligations of a Security Council “decision” under Article 25 of the UN Charter. The resolution’s language used terms like “endorses” and “welcomes,” which carry political approval rather than legal compulsion. Furthermore, the resolution was not adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which is required for enforcement measures.
A detailed 2021 legal analysis by the German Bundestag concluded that the agreements were political commitments, not binding international treaties. It noted that UN Security Council resolutions are only binding if the language and context indicate a “decision” rather than a “recommendation,” and Resolution 2202 did not meet this threshold. Other legal analysts have described the Minsk documents as “political agreements” or even a “private-law contract” with no formal international legal force.
The Minsk agreements are a political framework with intentio0nal ambiguous legal standing. They posed for pictures and touted this as a major event, and that means they not only lied to Russia, they lied to the press and the people. While Russia and China assert they are legally binding due to UN endorsement, most Western legal analyses conclude they were political commitments that lacked the formal characteristics of a binding international treaty. This unresolved legal ambiguity is a central reason why the agreements ultimately collapsed. Why would China or Russia agree to any peace agreement when the West never tells the truth and act like like some used car salesmen?
The deception and lies did not begin with the Minsk Agreement. There is substantial evidence that U.S. Secretary of State James Baker gave Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev assurances in February 1990 that NATO would NOT expand eastward. However, whether those assurances amounted to deliberate deception has been long debated. The declassified documents establish that the assurances were made. What they do not conclusively establish is that Washington deliberately intended to deceive Moscow when they were given.
The distinction is important because the dispute involves three separate issues: what was promised, whether those promises were binding, and whether American officials knew they would eventually violate them.
There is NO QUESTION that James Baker actually made that promise in February 1990. On February 9, 1990, Secretary of State James Baker met Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow to discuss German reunification and the possibility of a united Germany remaining in NATO. Baker proposed that NATO’s jurisdiction would not move one inch eastward if Moscow accepted German reunification within NATO.
The American memorandum of the meeting records Baker saying:
“There would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.”
This was not merely a casual remark. Baker was exploring a diplomatic arrangement designed to secure Soviet acceptance of German reunification. The following day, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl also discussed NATO’s future with Gorbachev. Again, he offered similar assurances as was the case with other Western officials during the reunification negotiations.
The declassified American and Soviet records confirm the exchange. Baker also told Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze that there would need to be firm guarantees against NATO’s eastward movement.
The conventional dishonest American argument pushed by the Neocons is that Baker’s statement concerned the deployment of NATO forces into the former East Germany, not a permanent prohibition on admitting Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia or other Eastern European countries.
However, the declassified records complicate that interpretation. On January 31, 1990, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher proposed that NATO should rule out expansion toward Soviet borders. Then on February 6, Genscher discussed with British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd the possibility of Poland leaving the Warsaw Pact and subsequently joining NATO. He argued that the Soviets needed assurances that this would not happen immediately.
The discussions therefore extended beyond the territory of East Germany. The Neocons never care about anything other than their thirst for world domination. Make no mistake, these people have usurped American foreign policy and are leading the world to its destruction.
In December 2017, the National Security Archive at George Washington University published a collection of declassified American, Soviet, German, British and French documents under the title NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard.
Its researchers concluded that Soviet complaints about being misled had a substantial documentary foundation.
Was it intentional Neocon deception?
The case for deliberate deception laid out that Baker was an experienced diplomat who understood the importance of his words. His assurances were repeated, and other Western officials made similar statements. They assumed this was the US position.
These assurances helped persuade the Soviet leadership to accept German reunification within NATO.
The argument is that Western governments obtained a major strategic concession from Moscow and subsequently abandoned the assurances that had helped secure it. That is hard to just dismiss.
The case against deliberate deception presented by the warmongering-Neocons, rests on the February 1990 discussions they claim were part of an evolving negotiation, not a completed agreement. President George H. W. Bush’s administration subsequently moved away from Baker’s initial proposal as the Neocons directed. The final German reunification settlement, signed in September 1990, imposed specific military restrictions on the former East Germany but did NOT prohibit NATO from admitting other countries.
Furthermore, the Soviet Union still existed in February 1990. Its dissolution in December 1991 fundamentally transformed the European security environment. So they argue the USSR no longer existed so anything they promised was to an old government. This is a favorite tactic to default on sovereign debt. The new government is not obligated to pay the debt of the previous.
There is insufficient documentary evidence to establish that Baker already intended in February 1990 to encourage NATO’s later expansion while knowingly making a false promise to Gorbachev. Historian Joshua Shifrinson’s research, published in International Security, nevertheless supports the conclusion that the United States made genuine non-expansion offers during the 1990 negotiations.
Unclassified documents have surfaced confirming that actually Putin is correct — NATO had promised not to move one inch eastward and that Eastern Europe was to be a buffer zone of neutrality. NATO has been the agressor and they are NOT ever interested in peace because if there was really peace, then there is no need for NATO and all those people would lose jobs. Of course, mainstream media just read the Neocon script and keep propelling us into World War III. They do not care about the country or the people. Investigative journalism is gasping its last breaths.
This leaves a dangerous precedent. How can any peace agreement ever be taken seriously when the West wiggles out of enat they agreed to?
facts matter
Christopher Harborne is a British defense contractor. He is a major shareholder in QinetiQ, a UK defense technology company that holds Ministry of Defence (MoD) contracts. He donated £1 million pounds, the largest donations to any PM of Britain in history. The Boris took him to introduce him to officials in Ukraine.
Based on leaked documents from Johnson’s private office, the two-day visit took place from 8 September 2023. Harborne was officially registered as an “adviser, Office of Boris Johnson” for the high-level Yalta European Strategy (YES) forum in Kyiv.
The trip included meetings with top Ukrainian officials and a visit to Lviv. Notably, the itinerary mentioned a closed meeting at a military-tech R&D center, an area where Harborne has business interests as the largest shareholder in the British defense firm QinetiQ.
Context of the Relationship
This visit occurred less than a year after Harborne donated £1 million to a private company Johnson set up after resigning as Prime Minister. Leaked files also indicate the two had a prior call in January 2023 labeled as a “Ukraine readout”. By September 2024, Boris Johnson flew to Ukraine to stop any peace deal.
Ukraine has been buying or receiving war materials from QinetiQ. The available evidence points to two main channels: direct supply of military equipment through UK aid packages, and indirect funding that allows Ukraine to purchase from the company.
QinetiQ’s products are included in the UK’s military aid packages to Ukraine. According to reports analyzing internal British government documents, QinetiQ is among the key beneficiaries of these contracts.
Specific Products: Its flagship products, including Banshee drones, advanced reconnaissance systems, and TALON robots (used for mine clearance and urban combat), are part of Britain’s military aid to Ukraine.
Drone Supply: Multiple sources confirm that QinetiQ has supplied drones to the Ukrainian armed forces, with one report explicitly labeling the company as a “supplier of drones to Kyiv”.
Beyond direct gifts from the UK government, Ukraine can also use international loan funds to make purchases from QinetiQ.
EU Loan Package: In July 2026, the UK joined a €90 billion EU loan package for Ukraine. Under this agreement, Ukraine can use the funds to purchase weapons and ammunition from British defence companies, with QinetiQ explicitly named as one of the eligible suppliers.
These purchases are part of a broader UK support effort that has seen the delivery of over 85,000 drones in a six-month period.
Boris Johnson first visited Ukraine in April 2022, specifically on April 9, 2022. This was an unannounced visit to Kyiv, making him the first leader of a G7 country to visit Ukraine following the full-scale Russian invasion.
Johnson made several follow-up visits during his time as Prime Minister:
June 2022: He made a second surprise visit to Kyiv.
August 2022: He visited Kyiv for a third time, coinciding with Ukraine’s Independence Day.
My sources in Ukraine informed me that Boris had just flown to meet with Zelensky informally to instruct him not to sign anything on rare earths with USA in Kiev, and to embarass Trump publicly into keep fund the war by insisting that the meeting should be at the White House. I warned the White House of the info I had received. Indeed, that is what took place and Zelensky follow his orders That was the spectacle on TV in February 2025. It has been Boris who has pushed Ukraine to total destruction. He is always there constantly to ensure war, and it seems his is paid to do so.
Johnson declared that Britain was in a proxy war with Russia back in November 2024. “It has been pathetic… Let’s face it: We’re waging a proxy war but not giving our proxies the ability to do the job. For years now, we’ve been allowing them to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, and it has been cruel,”
Video Player
00:00
01:08
Here is a video of Polish FM Sikorski which is a huge NEOCON saying:
- “Kremlin’s assets frozen in Europe and never going back to Russia”
- “They can be used [the assets] now to help prevent further destruction and make future reconstruction cheaper”
- “If the war ends tomorrow, Russia will remain a threat. We cannot afford to once again underestimate the danger of Moscow’s militarism.”
This last one reminds me of what they told Reagan after communism fell, “You can never trust a Russian”. This confirms it is personal hatred. This is why World War III is inevitable. They just hate Russians and are punishing all the people for their leaders who took them as hostages into a communist wonderland. Today, we have socialists who have undermined Europe’s economy with the very same theories of “material equality” and the rise of progressives in the USA and Canada all with the same dream of robbing the rich to create their would of equality.
Kalus Schwab, an academic, even had a bust of Lenin on his bookshelf. He too popularized: “You will own nothing and be happy.” These European leaders who are consumed with hatred of the Russian people, like the American South against the blacks because they lost the war with the North, are following the very same path that Lenin took Russia. End of free speech is always the first to go.
They overlook that Putin was particularly critical of Lenin and said he was not a statesman but just a Bolshevik in 2016. He said that Lenin created “a time bomb under our state.” He also denounced Stalin for massive purges that killed millions but noted his role in defeating the Nazis in WW II. Putin also blasted the Bolsheviks for making Russia lose World War I in their quest for power, making Russia suffer defeat by Germany and cede large chunks of territory just months before it lost World War I. “We lost to the losing party, a unique case in history,” Putin said.
Putin criticized the Communist ideology, noting that while promises of a fair and just society in the Communist ideology “resembled the Bible quite a lot,” the reality was different. “Our country didn’t look like the City of the Sun,” envisaged by socialist utopians, he said. Regarding Lenin’s tomb, Leon Trotsky, Lev Kamenev, and Nikolai Bukharin famously opposed the idea of Lenin’s embalming, while his late wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya, wrote for the Pravda newspaper in the year of his death: “Do not build for him monuments, castles in his name, (hold) opulent receptions in his memories etc. To all of this he assigned such little significance in life and it saddened him so.”
Vladimir Putin had denounced Lenin and his Bolshevik government for their brutal repressions and accused him of having placed a “time bomb” under the state. The criticism of Lenin, who is still revered by communists and many others in Russia, is unusual for the Russian president, who in the past carefully weighed his comments about the nation’s history to avoid alienating some voters. At the same time, he signalled that the government had no intention of taking Lenin’s body out of his Red Square tomb, warning against “any steps that would divide society.”
Putin’s assessment of Lenin’s role in Russian history during Monday’s meeting with pro-Kremlin activists in the southern city of Stavropol was markedly more negative than in the past. He denounced Lenin and his government for brutally executing Russia’s last tsar along with all his family and servants, killing thousands of priests and placing a time bomb under the Russian state by drawing administrative borders along ethnic lines.
As an example of Lenin’s destructive legacy, Putin pointed to Donbass, the industrial region in eastern Ukraine where a pro-Russia separatist rebellion flared up weeks after Russia’s March 2014 annexation of Crimea. More than 9,000 people have been killed in the conflict since April 2014, and clashes have continued despite a February 2015 peace deal.
He said Lenin’s government had whimsically drawn borders between parts of the USSR, placing Donbass under the Ukrainian jurisdiction in order to increase the percentage of proletariat in a move Putin called “delirious.”
They were against Reagan’s meeting with Gorbachev. I can tell you this because I was in a discussion in DC at the time. The Neocons tried to prevent that meeting, telling Reagan, “You can never trust a Russian.” These people are no different than the Southerners who blamed the blacks for the Civil War and transformed it into racism. They are evil and disgusting people who should be locked up in an insane asylum to save humanity. These people are EXTREMELY dangerous because they weasel their way into government to carry out a policy coup to wage war and destroy their perceived enemy and they do not care how many people die on the front lies for their objectives. They will ALWAYS reject peace. They are too consumed with personal hatred and that is the dark side of humanity.
While the Neocon twisted this into Putin wanted to retake Eastern Europe, this only showed their hatred of the Russian People. Putin enjoyed overwhelming support because he had NO INTENTION of return to Communism or restore the only USSR. He has been there since 1999. That Neocon propaganda to get funding for their warmongering policies has proven wrong.
If the United States collapsed, the same problem would emerge. American would be stranded from Okinawa to the Middle East. That is what has happened in the old USSR. The Neocons have used the Donbas to manufacture World War III to satisfy their personal hatred of the Russian people. Unfortunately, it is not Russia we need to defeat, we need to purge governments of this cancer within that will NEVER accept peace just as you just heard that Polish official.
Video Player
00:00
07:08
The World Economic Forum is a globalist threat to humanity. They think a one world government is the answer. That was the idea behind the EU. That has failed. The Russians owned nothing, and they were NOT happy. I think this is our fate. Perhaps this time when we crash and burn and the future of our posterity has been consumed by a dark cloud created by these Neocons, just maybe, post 2032 we will reconstruct a government that wages war not by a few people who are unelected hiding in a back closed room, but adopt a real Democracy where
Must vote on taxes and war.
Thomas Paine’s Common Sense hit the nail on the head. These Neocons usurp power, alter our foreign policy, and the assume that they represent the people.
Video Player
00:00
07:48
