8 ms·

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

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?
      - chokolad 9y ago
        > Russia yearns for the good old days. Russia picked up all the Soviet Union debt obligations. All those successor states have been essentially debt free on day one.
        gandhium 9y ago
        They _tricked_ others to take debt obligations for themselves. Since they took _all_ the Soviet properties as well.
        chokolad 9y ago
        That's _novel_ interpretation of that deal.
        Giorgi 9y ago
        Yet, that's exactly what happened and you "conveniently" forgot to mention that Russia also took all the SU wealth and reserves. They even pulled back all of the weapons and military vehicles out of the ex-member countries, leaving them exposed and then started to help separatists in the wars against sovereign nations. Russia is shittiest neighbor of them all.
      - mantas 9y ago
        Yet Russia took Soviet Union embassies. Even those that belonged to other countries before USSR annexed them. As well as grandfathered USSR seat in UN security council. Kaliningrad was also given to Soviet Union Even though it was attached to Russian Federation to work around this. If Russia ain't Soviet Union successor, Kaliningrad should be no man's land or returned to Germany. Talking about Estonia.. When Estonia tried to relocate USSR monument, it was Russia which objected.
    - chokolad 9y ago
      Can you provide an example of Russia denying Soviet Union's obligations when it was not convenient?
      - gandhium 9y ago
        Accepting blame for Soviet occupation of Baltic states or Poland. Accepting repercussions for Holodomor.
        chokolad 9y ago
        Soviet Union did not accept the blame for occupation of Baltic states so I don't see how it should be Russia's obligation. Repercussions of Holodomor were deaths of millions of Soviet citizens in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus. What do you want Russia to accept here ?
        mantas 9y ago
        Russia denies it's Soviet Union obligations whenever talks turn to paying reparations for Baltic States occupation or military actions in Czechoslovakia or Hungary. Yet they love Soviet Union obligations when they don't return Lithuania's interwar embassy in Rome. Or when May 8/9 comes around :)
        gandhium 9y ago
        > Soviet Union did not accept the blame for occupation of Baltic states so I don't see how it should be Russia's obligation. USSR didn't accept 'Tsar's bonds' yet Russia payed them out. So, yeah, double standards. > What do you want Russia to accept here Same as for praising 'Russian' victory over Germany, for example. Accept their involvement.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  Exactly, much of the eastward expansion of NATO was from parts of the Soviet Union joining NATO. If they didn't want NATO to expand eastward, then they shouldn't have joined it.
chokolad 9y ago
The problem is, that when Russia brought up those agreements pretty much everybody said "nu-uh, that did not happen, show me the agreements". When Russians mention that the agreement was verbal they are pretty much accused of lying. Now we have proof that the verbal agreement exists.
- Giorgi 9y ago
  The problem is, agreement was made with Soviet Union and not with Russia.
- Jesus_Jones 9y ago
  it isn't a binding agreement if there is no treaty. I'm sure russia had some treaties saying don't invade georgia, but they did. The old soviet union gave Crimea to Ukraine and Russia took it back by force. That was part of another country. Russia's violates treaties when it wants. It is not a trustworthy country. I think Russia is afraid of countries that want to be independent of the Russia's greater power.

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?
    - chokolad 9y ago
      > Russia yearns for the good old days. Russia picked up all the Soviet Union debt obligations. All those successor states have been essentially debt free on day one.
      - gandhium 9y ago
        They _tricked_ others to take debt obligations for themselves. Since they took _all_ the Soviet properties as well.
        chokolad 9y ago
        That's _novel_ interpretation of that deal.
        Giorgi 9y ago
        Yet, that's exactly what happened and you "conveniently" forgot to mention that Russia also took all the SU wealth and reserves. They even pulled back all of the weapons and military vehicles out of the ex-member countries, leaving them exposed and then started to help separatists in the wars against sovereign nations. Russia is shittiest neighbor of them all.
    - mantas 9y ago
      Yet Russia took Soviet Union embassies. Even those that belonged to other countries before USSR annexed them. As well as grandfathered USSR seat in UN security council. Kaliningrad was also given to Soviet Union Even though it was attached to Russian Federation to work around this. If Russia ain't Soviet Union successor, Kaliningrad should be no man's land or returned to Germany. Talking about Estonia.. When Estonia tried to relocate USSR monument, it was Russia which objected.
  - chokolad 9y ago
    Can you provide an example of Russia denying Soviet Union's obligations when it was not convenient?
    - gandhium 9y ago
      Accepting blame for Soviet occupation of Baltic states or Poland. Accepting repercussions for Holodomor.
      - chokolad 9y ago
        Soviet Union did not accept the blame for occupation of Baltic states so I don't see how it should be Russia's obligation. Repercussions of Holodomor were deaths of millions of Soviet citizens in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus. What do you want Russia to accept here ?
        mantas 9y ago
        Russia denies it's Soviet Union obligations whenever talks turn to paying reparations for Baltic States occupation or military actions in Czechoslovakia or Hungary. Yet they love Soviet Union obligations when they don't return Lithuania's interwar embassy in Rome. Or when May 8/9 comes around :)
        gandhium 9y ago
        > Soviet Union did not accept the blame for occupation of Baltic states so I don't see how it should be Russia's obligation. USSR didn't accept 'Tsar's bonds' yet Russia payed them out. So, yeah, double standards. > What do you want Russia to accept here Same as for praising 'Russian' victory over Germany, for example. Accept their involvement.
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
Exactly, much of the eastward expansion of NATO was from parts of the Soviet Union joining NATO. If they didn't want NATO to expand eastward, then they shouldn't have joined it.

chokolad 9y ago

The problem is, that when Russia brought up those agreements pretty much everybody said "nu-uh, that did not happen, show me the agreements". When Russians mention that the agreement was verbal they are pretty much accused of lying. Now we have proof that the verbal agreement exists.

Giorgi 9y ago
The problem is, agreement was made with Soviet Union and not with Russia.
Jesus_Jones 9y ago
it isn't a binding agreement if there is no treaty. I'm sure russia had some treaties saying don't invade georgia, but they did. The old soviet union gave Crimea to Ukraine and Russia took it back by force. That was part of another country. Russia's violates treaties when it wants. It is not a trustworthy country. I think Russia is afraid of countries that want to be independent of the Russia's greater power.