besserhoch3 schrieb am 10.10.2024 17:50:
Ich hab das Duell nur durchgespult, aber den, wie zu erwartenenden, Rand auf die NATO gesehen.
Es war war so typisch von Weidel, die so böse NATO habe sich trotz Versprechen, nach Osten ausgedehnt und bedroht nun Russland. (Hätte auch Wagenknecht so kommen können).
Wenn Weidel dann den 2+4-Vertrag anspricht, muss sie 1990 bis jetzt gepennt haben.
Die "NATO-Osterweiterung" bezog sich nur auf die neuen Bundesländer, denn weiter östlich war noch der Warschauer Pakt. Der wurde erst im Sommer 1991 aufgelöst.https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwei-plus-Vier-Vertrag#Kontroverse_zur_NATO-Osterweiterung
Die englische Version ist noch deutlicher:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Final_Settlement_with_Respect_to_Germany#Russian_claims_of_unwritten_assurances
Du solltest nicht nur in den Vertrag schauen, sondern auch was während der Verhandlungen zugesichert wurde:
The CSCE summit devoted to the future of Europe would be an important vehicle for helping the Soviet Union to come to terms with the erosion of the Warsaw. Pact Genscher added that when he talked about not wanting to extend NATO that applied to other states beside the GDR . The Russians must have some assurance that if for example the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day they would not join NATO the next.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16113-document-02-mr-hurd-sir-c-mallaby-bonn
(Seite 2, Absatz 4)
Hier der US-Außenminister James Baker in einem Brief an den Bundeskanzler über sein Gespräch mit Gorbatschow:
And then I put the following question to him: Would you prefer to see a unified Germany outside of NATO independent and with no US forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO with assurances that NATO's jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position. He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options and would be discussing them soon in a kind of seminar. He then added Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable. By implication NATO in its current zone might be acceptable.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16119-document-08-letter-james-baker-helmut-kohl
Oder hier:
Before saying a few words about the German issue I wanted to emphasize that our policies are not aimed at separating Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union. We had that policy before. But today we are interested in building a stable Europe and doing it together with you.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16132-document-18-record-conversation-between
Der Bericht über die Azssagen des britische Premierministers John Major in einem Gespräch mit dem sowjetischen Verteidigungsminister:
This gives him a chance to launch into a great harangue about the need for trust and security in Europe which rapidly evolves into a justification of the Soviet position on NATO and the CFE. He professes to be worried that the Czechs Poles and Hungarians will join NATO. Havel has been making equivocal statements. Major assures him that nothing of the sort will happen.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16142-document-28-ambassador-rodric-braithwaite-diary
NATO Generalsekretär Manfred Wörner zu Boris Jelzin:
Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO. 13 out of 16 NATO members support this point of view. In the near future at his meeting with L Walesa and the Romanian leader A Iliescu he will oppose Poland and Romania joining NATO and earlier this was stated to Hungary and Czechoslovakia. We should not allow stated M Woerner the isolation of the USSR from the European community.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16144-document-30-memorandum-boris-yeltsin
Die Sammlung aller Dokumente findet man hier:
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
Und ja, nach dem UN Vertragsrecht sind auch mündliche Zusagen bindend:
Agreement as a generic term: The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties employs the term "international agreement" in its broadest sense. On the one hand, it defines treaties as "international agreements" with certain characteristics. On the other hand, it employs the term "international agreements" for instruments, which do not meet its definition of "treaty". Its Art.3 refers also to "international agreements not in written form". Although such oral agreements may be rare, they can have the same binding force as treaties, depending on the intention of the parties. An example of an oral agreement might be a promise made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of one State to his counterpart of another State. The term "international agreement" in its generic sense consequently embraces the widest range of international instruments.
https://treaties.un.org/Pages/Overview.aspx?path=overview/definition/page1_en.xml