7 ms·

This seems like much ado about nothing. Yes, in joining these countries to NATO the west violated the letter of this agreement but under the Yelsen administrati

This seems like much ado about nothing. Yes, in joining these countries to NATO the west violated the letter of this agreement but under the Yelsen administration this probably was not percieved as hostile and no one forsaw the retrograde in the relationship between Russia and NATO at that time. I believe in fact that at the beginning of Vladimir Putin's first term there was still talk of Russia joining NATO. So, to treat this as some nefarious western ploy is basically to ignore the thawing in relations that occurred in the nineties, the trust that was growing at that time and the hope we all began to take for granted.

geowwy 9y ago
I don’t think we can poopoo it that easily. The expansion of NATO is one of Russia’s biggest grievances against the West. Russia is in an historically vulnerable position right now which is a large part of the reason why they’re behaving so aggressively and recklessly.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Russia is always a schitzoid State because it’s not European and not Asian. It’s both and neither. IMO, for all of the screwed up nature of the country, Russia is so big that it and it’s sphere of influence is always a threat to its neighbors. If you are not an ethnic Russian, happen to live between the economic powerhouse of Western Europe and Russia, you probably want to affiliate with the strong economy of the West vs being a sort of vassal to Russia.
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    I'd say the problem is that it's too European - it held onto Medieval Europe's system of serfdom and highly centralized power far too long; the agricultural riches and later oil riches in Russia made modernization less interesting. One big revolution is no substitute for ten thousand small ones. In size (population and moreso economy) it's now not that far ahead of Germany and has China and India as neighbors/near neighbors. I'd say it is adopting the psychology of the tough small guy.
- tomash 9y ago
  You don't live in a country bordering Russia, do you? Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century, without much stop. Russia's western neighbors flock to NATO for a reason. Basically Russia is the bully of the neighborhood, using violence whenever it doesn't get whatever it wants.
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    So was Sweden at the time... I think your understanding of History is flawed at best.
    - maaark 9y ago
      Appeal to hypocrisy. Also, haven't seen Sweden invade anyone recently.
      - dogma1138 9y ago
        No it's not appeal to hypocrisy, Russias actions are pretty much defined by it's geography it's effectively a land locked country without warm water ports surrounded by local and global super powers.
    - Svip 9y ago
      Sweden has maintained a policy of neutrality since the Napoleonic Wars. I don't recall Russia perusing any similar foreign policy during the same period.
      - dogma1138 9y ago
        And before that? Gustaf the II? The 30 year war?
  - StudentStuff 9y ago
    Hasn't Russia been all too keen to flex its might when it comes to Natural Gas too? As most of the nations in Eastern and Central Europe rely on Natural Gas coming from Russia for heat & some power. The soft power Russia has seems to be growing, never mind the wars they are all too happy to fight without acknowledging that a war is being waged.
- BjoernKW 9y ago
  How so? NATO expanding to Poland and the Baltic countries is more of a perceived threat to Russia and its own colonial aspirations rather than an actual military threat. In my opinion losing economic influence is what Russia should really be worried about. With Poland and the Baltic countries becoming part of the EU they not only gradually lost influence on these markets but the potential access to the larger European market those provided as well. These issues certainly can't be seen separately. On a global scale economic prosperity often is connected to strategic power. However, it might be beneficial to Russia (not necessarily Russian politicians, though) to, instead of considering these questions in terms of national grievances, proactively seek more trade deals and economic cooperation. In the 1990s even Russia becoming part of the EU wasn't that far out.
  - skeletal88 9y ago
    Russia lost it's economic importance here before we even joined the EU, and it's lost even more of it's importance as a trading partner, because Russia tried to use trade as a weapon. They have repeatedly randomly banned imports of products (mostly food) from Estonia and other countries for made up reasons, then removed the restrictions to repeat that again in some years. Then after a statue was moved they basically stopped all oil exports through Estonian ports, the excuse being an emergency repair that lasted ages on a railroad next to their border with Estonia. Because of this most people avoid doing business with Russia, because it's just so random. You build relations, start selling something to them and then their state randomly bans the imports of the thing you've been exporting. There's too much risk. If they were a reliable trading partner then everyone would be happier, and they'd have more soft power.
    - cat199 9y ago
      > trade as a weapon the west doesn't use access to capital as a weapon?
      - v_lisivka 9y ago
        Yep, but reasons are clear and not random.
- DubiousPusher 9y ago
  You're right. I came out a little strong. It complicates matters and gives the Russian government a stronger point of grievance, not without some legitimacy. I simultaneously don't think it's quite the Machiavellian dagger in back some are making it out to be.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  A historically vulnerable position? Vulnerable to what? To an invasion by NATO? There's two ways you can answer that question. The first is, no, it's not vulnerable, because there are exactly zero NATO members who have any interest whatsoever in invading Russia. That is simply not going to happen. The second answer is to remember history. Napoleon invaded and captured Moscow. Hitler invaded and made it to just outside Moscow. Both of them started from further west than NATO could start. So, yes, from the perspective of history, Russia has less of a geographic buffer than it had in the past. But I think Putin isn't really afraid of a NATO invasion. What he's really afraid of is a color revolution. He therefore is building grievances against the West, not because he fears NATO, but because he fears real democracy. (Yes, I know, the democracy in the west has problems, and is less "real" than it should be. It's still miles ahead of what's happening in Russia, though. And Putin wants the situation in Russia to stay as it is.)
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    The simultaneous weakening of both Russia's military position and it's economic position make it far harder for Putin's cabal to persuade the masses that they are terrific managers who are making Russia great again. Whether keeping Putin comfortable should be on our agenda at all is another question of course.
    - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
      > Whether keeping Putin comfortable should be on our agenda at all is another question of course. Well, it may be to our advantage to not back him too tightly into a corner. Or at least it may be very much to our disadvantage to corner him too tightly...
      - Nomentatus 9y ago
        Right - just not nec in the interest of the Russian people. A tough one.
  - myaso 9y ago
    Having Nato boundaries inch closer makes Moscow & St Petersburg vulnerable to a first strike from a short range ballistic missle without warning -- this could happen faster than anyone can react with like 10 min lead time. All joining Nato does for eastern European countries is ensure their citizens can go on adventures overseas with Americans and come back in a casket and secondly it plasters a big ass target on top of them for a nuke -- I guess they are too stupid to realize that the Americans and British would prefer to have them die over their own citizens. Nobody cares about a conventional invasion dude, the prospect of eastern Nato states invading Russia is laughable, there are easier ways to commit suicide. Lol "real democracy"? Like the "real democracy" that plunged the Middle East into absolute chaos? Or failed to contain the spread Islamic extremism across Africa? Or stop Saudi funded Madrassas popping up in every Muslim country? Your entire democracy developed because North America is isolated geographically from immediately hostile nations, and with no real threats and having grown pampered and fat it is only natural to intervene in the affairs of others. Given the American competence in Iraq/Vietnam/Syria why aren't you suspecting that the export of "democracy" doesn't work yet? A color revolution through some proxy freedom institute isn't really desired anywhere given past outcomes -- let's assume the Arab Spring is an extension of that too, I'm sure the money comes from the same source. Take a look at the countries that share a border with Russia and the implications of having an imbecile in power there -- Europe being pumped full of refugees via Erdogan's Turkey is a nice preview for you. Western European style democracy might not be desired or even feasible in Russia.
bobzibub 9y ago
Whenever relations with nuclear powers are concerned, trust between these governments is an important issue for everyone. I don't think anyone has claimed that there was a conspiracy at the time. But for the West to renege on past agreements undermines existing ones and makes future agreements more difficult with any party. The world is much more dangerous as a result. 2 1/2 minutes to midnight.
musage 9y ago
The fact is that they made the assurance, and then lied and said they never gave such an assurance. If you think lying isn't nefarious, that's your outlook.
- laGrenouille 9y ago
  The problem with this argument is that there is no particular "they" that lied here. George Bush (senior) negotiated these assurances and then, almost a decade later, Clinton reneged on them. I think it is generally known that foreign relation promises not enshrined in formal treaties should not be expected to last across different administrations.
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    Another important distinction is that they made an assurance to the Soviet Union, not Russia. The political situation in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics changed pretty substantially as well.
    - sebasmurphy 9y ago
      +1. I fail to see how the NATO is in the 'wrong' here. They broke assurances in 1994 that they made to an entity which failed to exist after 1991. WUT?
      - mantas 9y ago
        Just Russia being Soviet Union successor when it's convenient and claiming to be a new state when it's not.
        Spooky23 9y ago
        Russia yearns for the good old days. Russia isn’t the Soviet Union, it was a part of the Soviet Union, and a member of the “Commonwealth of Independent States” that nominally succeeded it. My understanding is that treaties were reaffirmed with the individual states. Does every non-binding commitment to be Soviet Union apply to Uzbekistan? Estonia? Georgia? What about when the desires of Estonia conflict with the Soviets? What about when the interests of the United States and other big NATO states conflict with the commitments to the various Post-Soviet states?
thriftwy 9y ago
> no one forsaw the retrograde in the relationship That's plainly not true. George Kennan did. "I think it is the beginning of a new cold war," said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. "I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs." "What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was," added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed "X," defined America’s cold-war containment policy for 40 years. "I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don’t people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.
- tome 9y ago
  > And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. Those "very people" are not the same as those currently in power. The latter are presumably, in one way or another, the ones propagating this particular reading of history.
- DubiousPusher 9y ago
  Good point. I guess it should have read 'few forsaw the retrograde in the relationship.' What I mean was that, I think a lot of folks saw the Russian's international ambitions as dwindling massively after the fall of the Soviet Union and that they'd focus on improving their domestic situation. I think most of us expected something akin to the decolonization that took place after WWII, which vastly dimished the power of old European powers.
  - thriftwy 9y ago
csense 9y ago
We told them we wouldn't expand NATO further toward Russia. Then we went back on our word and did it. Russia responds to Western meddling in its "backyard" with geopolitical moves in Crimea and Ukraine, and meddling in the US election. When the Russians started messing about in Cuba, we nearly went full WW3 on them. For what purpose did we go back on our word? We won the cold war. The best path forward would have been to strengthen ties so the two superpowers could work together to deal with the world's problems. Instead we decided to humiliate the Russians, and the pro-west Yeltsin was eventually replaced by the nationalist Putin. Whoever was making these policy decisions in the '90s -- What were they thinking?
- cat199 9y ago
  > For what purpose did we go back on our word? ... so the two superpowers why have 2 superpowers, when you can have one?
- 3pt14159 9y ago
  They were thinking: "Hm, these Russians haven't rooted out corruption and there is a decent chance that they'll backslide into an illiberal state. Best to take the countries that want democracy and peace while we still can." Though I agree that Ukraine has led to a lot of trouble. Still probably worth it in the long run though.
- gandhium 9y ago
  > Instead we decided to humiliate the Russians By providing billions of dollars to them in humanitarian help, credits and jobs? Humiliation, for sure.
- zeveb 9y ago
  > Whoever was making these policy decisions in the '90s -- What were they thinking? I don't think Bill Clinton was generally thinking of much at all. He wasn't a terribly good executive, but was in fact a failed governor of a poor state who got doubly lucky: first, that he was the challenger during a recession; and second, that a third-party challenger siphoned votes for the incumbent. Fortunately for America, clueless disinterest worked pretty well for eight years, allowing the Internet to take off. Unfortunately, cluelessness also set the scene for the geopolitical worlds of 2001 & 2003 …

geowwy 9y ago

I don’t think we can poopoo it that easily. The expansion of NATO is one of Russia’s biggest grievances against the West. Russia is in an historically vulnerable position right now which is a large part of the reason why they’re behaving so aggressively and recklessly.

Spooky23 9y ago
Russia is always a schitzoid State because it’s not European and not Asian. It’s both and neither. IMO, for all of the screwed up nature of the country, Russia is so big that it and it’s sphere of influence is always a threat to its neighbors. If you are not an ethnic Russian, happen to live between the economic powerhouse of Western Europe and Russia, you probably want to affiliate with the strong economy of the West vs being a sort of vassal to Russia.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  I'd say the problem is that it's too European - it held onto Medieval Europe's system of serfdom and highly centralized power far too long; the agricultural riches and later oil riches in Russia made modernization less interesting. One big revolution is no substitute for ten thousand small ones. In size (population and moreso economy) it's now not that far ahead of Germany and has China and India as neighbors/near neighbors. I'd say it is adopting the psychology of the tough small guy.
tomash 9y ago
You don't live in a country bordering Russia, do you? Historically Russia has been behaving aggressively and recklessly since at least 18th century, without much stop. Russia's western neighbors flock to NATO for a reason. Basically Russia is the bully of the neighborhood, using violence whenever it doesn't get whatever it wants.
- dogma1138 9y ago
  So was Sweden at the time... I think your understanding of History is flawed at best.
  - maaark 9y ago
    Appeal to hypocrisy. Also, haven't seen Sweden invade anyone recently.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      No it's not appeal to hypocrisy, Russias actions are pretty much defined by it's geography it's effectively a land locked country without warm water ports surrounded by local and global super powers.
  - Svip 9y ago
    Sweden has maintained a policy of neutrality since the Napoleonic Wars. I don't recall Russia perusing any similar foreign policy during the same period.
    - dogma1138 9y ago
      And before that? Gustaf the II? The 30 year war?
- StudentStuff 9y ago
  Hasn't Russia been all too keen to flex its might when it comes to Natural Gas too? As most of the nations in Eastern and Central Europe rely on Natural Gas coming from Russia for heat & some power. The soft power Russia has seems to be growing, never mind the wars they are all too happy to fight without acknowledging that a war is being waged.
BjoernKW 9y ago
How so? NATO expanding to Poland and the Baltic countries is more of a perceived threat to Russia and its own colonial aspirations rather than an actual military threat. In my opinion losing economic influence is what Russia should really be worried about. With Poland and the Baltic countries becoming part of the EU they not only gradually lost influence on these markets but the potential access to the larger European market those provided as well. These issues certainly can't be seen separately. On a global scale economic prosperity often is connected to strategic power. However, it might be beneficial to Russia (not necessarily Russian politicians, though) to, instead of considering these questions in terms of national grievances, proactively seek more trade deals and economic cooperation. In the 1990s even Russia becoming part of the EU wasn't that far out.
- skeletal88 9y ago
  Russia lost it's economic importance here before we even joined the EU, and it's lost even more of it's importance as a trading partner, because Russia tried to use trade as a weapon. They have repeatedly randomly banned imports of products (mostly food) from Estonia and other countries for made up reasons, then removed the restrictions to repeat that again in some years. Then after a statue was moved they basically stopped all oil exports through Estonian ports, the excuse being an emergency repair that lasted ages on a railroad next to their border with Estonia. Because of this most people avoid doing business with Russia, because it's just so random. You build relations, start selling something to them and then their state randomly bans the imports of the thing you've been exporting. There's too much risk. If they were a reliable trading partner then everyone would be happier, and they'd have more soft power.
  - cat199 9y ago
    > trade as a weapon the west doesn't use access to capital as a weapon?
    - v_lisivka 9y ago
      Yep, but reasons are clear and not random.
DubiousPusher 9y ago
You're right. I came out a little strong. It complicates matters and gives the Russian government a stronger point of grievance, not without some legitimacy. I simultaneously don't think it's quite the Machiavellian dagger in back some are making it out to be.
AnimalMuppet 9y ago
A historically vulnerable position? Vulnerable to what? To an invasion by NATO? There's two ways you can answer that question. The first is, no, it's not vulnerable, because there are exactly zero NATO members who have any interest whatsoever in invading Russia. That is simply not going to happen. The second answer is to remember history. Napoleon invaded and captured Moscow. Hitler invaded and made it to just outside Moscow. Both of them started from further west than NATO could start. So, yes, from the perspective of history, Russia has less of a geographic buffer than it had in the past. But I think Putin isn't really afraid of a NATO invasion. What he's really afraid of is a color revolution. He therefore is building grievances against the West, not because he fears NATO, but because he fears real democracy. (Yes, I know, the democracy in the west has problems, and is less "real" than it should be. It's still miles ahead of what's happening in Russia, though. And Putin wants the situation in Russia to stay as it is.)
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  The simultaneous weakening of both Russia's military position and it's economic position make it far harder for Putin's cabal to persuade the masses that they are terrific managers who are making Russia great again. Whether keeping Putin comfortable should be on our agenda at all is another question of course.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    > Whether keeping Putin comfortable should be on our agenda at all is another question of course. Well, it may be to our advantage to not back him too tightly into a corner. Or at least it may be very much to our disadvantage to corner him too tightly...
    - Nomentatus 9y ago
      Right - just not nec in the interest of the Russian people. A tough one.
- myaso 9y ago
  Having Nato boundaries inch closer makes Moscow & St Petersburg vulnerable to a first strike from a short range ballistic missle without warning -- this could happen faster than anyone can react with like 10 min lead time. All joining Nato does for eastern European countries is ensure their citizens can go on adventures overseas with Americans and come back in a casket and secondly it plasters a big ass target on top of them for a nuke -- I guess they are too stupid to realize that the Americans and British would prefer to have them die over their own citizens. Nobody cares about a conventional invasion dude, the prospect of eastern Nato states invading Russia is laughable, there are easier ways to commit suicide. Lol "real democracy"? Like the "real democracy" that plunged the Middle East into absolute chaos? Or failed to contain the spread Islamic extremism across Africa? Or stop Saudi funded Madrassas popping up in every Muslim country? Your entire democracy developed because North America is isolated geographically from immediately hostile nations, and with no real threats and having grown pampered and fat it is only natural to intervene in the affairs of others. Given the American competence in Iraq/Vietnam/Syria why aren't you suspecting that the export of "democracy" doesn't work yet? A color revolution through some proxy freedom institute isn't really desired anywhere given past outcomes -- let's assume the Arab Spring is an extension of that too, I'm sure the money comes from the same source. Take a look at the countries that share a border with Russia and the implications of having an imbecile in power there -- Europe being pumped full of refugees via Erdogan's Turkey is a nice preview for you. Western European style democracy might not be desired or even feasible in Russia.

bobzibub 9y ago

Whenever relations with nuclear powers are concerned, trust between these governments is an important issue for everyone. I don't think anyone has claimed that there was a conspiracy at the time. But for the West to renege on past agreements undermines existing ones and makes future agreements more difficult with any party. The world is much more dangerous as a result. 2 1/2 minutes to midnight.

musage 9y ago

The fact is that they made the assurance, and then lied and said they never gave such an assurance. If you think lying isn't nefarious, that's your outlook.

laGrenouille 9y ago
The problem with this argument is that there is no particular "they" that lied here. George Bush (senior) negotiated these assurances and then, almost a decade later, Clinton reneged on them. I think it is generally known that foreign relation promises not enshrined in formal treaties should not be expected to last across different administrations.
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Another important distinction is that they made an assurance to the Soviet Union, not Russia. The political situation in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics changed pretty substantially as well.
  - sebasmurphy 9y ago
    +1. I fail to see how the NATO is in the 'wrong' here. They broke assurances in 1994 that they made to an entity which failed to exist after 1991. WUT?
    - mantas 9y ago
      Just Russia being Soviet Union successor when it's convenient and claiming to be a new state when it's not.
      - Spooky23 9y ago
        Russia yearns for the good old days. Russia isn’t the Soviet Union, it was a part of the Soviet Union, and a member of the “Commonwealth of Independent States” that nominally succeeded it. My understanding is that treaties were reaffirmed with the individual states. Does every non-binding commitment to be Soviet Union apply to Uzbekistan? Estonia? Georgia? What about when the desires of Estonia conflict with the Soviets? What about when the interests of the United States and other big NATO states conflict with the commitments to the various Post-Soviet states?

thriftwy 9y ago

> no one forsaw the retrograde in the relationship That's plainly not true. George Kennan did. "I think it is the beginning of a new cold war," said Mr. Kennan from his Princeton home. "I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a light-hearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs." "What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was," added Mr. Kennan, who was present at the creation of NATO and whose anonymous 1947 article in the journal Foreign Affairs, signed "X," defined America’s cold-war containment policy for 40 years. "I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe. Don’t people understand? Our differences in the cold war were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.

tome 9y ago
> And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. Those "very people" are not the same as those currently in power. The latter are presumably, in one way or another, the ones propagating this particular reading of history.
DubiousPusher 9y ago
Good point. I guess it should have read 'few forsaw the retrograde in the relationship.' What I mean was that, I think a lot of folks saw the Russian's international ambitions as dwindling massively after the fall of the Soviet Union and that they'd focus on improving their domestic situation. I think most of us expected something akin to the decolonization that took place after WWII, which vastly dimished the power of old European powers.
- thriftwy 9y ago

csense 9y ago

We told them we wouldn't expand NATO further toward Russia. Then we went back on our word and did it. Russia responds to Western meddling in its "backyard" with geopolitical moves in Crimea and Ukraine, and meddling in the US election. When the Russians started messing about in Cuba, we nearly went full WW3 on them. For what purpose did we go back on our word? We won the cold war. The best path forward would have been to strengthen ties so the two superpowers could work together to deal with the world's problems. Instead we decided to humiliate the Russians, and the pro-west Yeltsin was eventually replaced by the nationalist Putin. Whoever was making these policy decisions in the '90s -- What were they thinking?

cat199 9y ago
> For what purpose did we go back on our word? ... so the two superpowers why have 2 superpowers, when you can have one?
3pt14159 9y ago
They were thinking: "Hm, these Russians haven't rooted out corruption and there is a decent chance that they'll backslide into an illiberal state. Best to take the countries that want democracy and peace while we still can." Though I agree that Ukraine has led to a lot of trouble. Still probably worth it in the long run though.
gandhium 9y ago
> Instead we decided to humiliate the Russians By providing billions of dollars to them in humanitarian help, credits and jobs? Humiliation, for sure.
zeveb 9y ago
> Whoever was making these policy decisions in the '90s -- What were they thinking? I don't think Bill Clinton was generally thinking of much at all. He wasn't a terribly good executive, but was in fact a failed governor of a poor state who got doubly lucky: first, that he was the challenger during a recession; and second, that a third-party challenger siphoned votes for the incumbent. Fortunately for America, clueless disinterest worked pretty well for eight years, allowing the Internet to take off. Unfortunately, cluelessness also set the scene for the geopolitical worlds of 2001 & 2003 …