4 ms·

No one promised that NATO will not expand, and it is not documented. It was discussed, but that’s it. It is Russia-propagated myth.

medo-bear 5y ago
it is certainly not a myth and it is not propagated by only russia [0]. russia was only stupid not to demand a written agreement [0] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russi...
- windock 5y ago
  Yes, it was discussed. But discussion and proposal is not an agreement, and not a promise. The article has no sources, and the most relevant part is “ U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”” That just does not prove NATO agreed not to expand.
  - medo-bear 5y ago
    the article does mention sources. read it. its an article not an essay. anyway i think it is very hard to argue that us and nato were honest. it is even harder to argue that nato is not a threat to russia. i find that in politics just as in life the simplest explanation is often the right one
    - windock 5y ago
      Every Eastern and Central European country joined NATO because of their fear of Russian aggression. Every former Pact country switched sides not to repeat history of being commandeered by Russia. That whole alliance was born to protect members from Russia. The simplest explanation is no one wants to be occupied by Russia so that Russia does not feel “threatened”.
      - medo-bear 5y ago
        your argument works only if russia actually wanted to invade these countries, for which there is zero evidence, esspecially at the time those countries joined nato. if anything, if you take your argument of threat from russia seriously, their security decreased. on the other hand, russia was attacked multiple times by western european countries and lost millions of its citizens. i think their unease at an alliamce which you yourself say is hostile, is justified
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  While that op-ed spins a nice narrative, the actual facts it rely on point only to the US suggesting that a freeze on further expansion could be on the table as part of German reunification talks. But whether or not it was open for discussion, no commitment was, in fact, made and Gorbachev has himself—after inspiring the myth by a vague statement about a feeling of betrayal at NATO expansion—acknowledged that and gone further and saying that a commitment on the issue was never even discussed as part of the negotiations. Saying something could be part of a deal as an inducement to get someone to the negotiating table doesn't automatically insert it into the deal, or even guarantee it gets talked about in the negotiation.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> No one promised that NATO will not expand, and it is not documented Gorbachev, whose ambiguous statement about a feeling of betrayal when NATO did expand in the east beyond the reunited Germany is the source of the myth of the promise, later explicitly stated that no promise was made and the issue was never even brought up. (And it's not as if the USSR and the USA didn’t understand the use of memorializing important agreements in writing to prevent later disputes about their scope and content.)

medo-bear 5y ago

it is certainly not a myth and it is not propagated by only russia [0]. russia was only stupid not to demand a written agreement [0] https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russia-us-nato-deal--20160530-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-shifrinson-russi...

windock 5y ago
Yes, it was discussed. But discussion and proposal is not an agreement, and not a promise. The article has no sources, and the most relevant part is “ U.S. could make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”” That just does not prove NATO agreed not to expand.
- medo-bear 5y ago
  the article does mention sources. read it. its an article not an essay. anyway i think it is very hard to argue that us and nato were honest. it is even harder to argue that nato is not a threat to russia. i find that in politics just as in life the simplest explanation is often the right one
  - windock 5y ago
    Every Eastern and Central European country joined NATO because of their fear of Russian aggression. Every former Pact country switched sides not to repeat history of being commandeered by Russia. That whole alliance was born to protect members from Russia. The simplest explanation is no one wants to be occupied by Russia so that Russia does not feel “threatened”.
    - medo-bear 5y ago
      your argument works only if russia actually wanted to invade these countries, for which there is zero evidence, esspecially at the time those countries joined nato. if anything, if you take your argument of threat from russia seriously, their security decreased. on the other hand, russia was attacked multiple times by western european countries and lost millions of its citizens. i think their unease at an alliamce which you yourself say is hostile, is justified
dragonwriter 5y ago
While that op-ed spins a nice narrative, the actual facts it rely on point only to the US suggesting that a freeze on further expansion could be on the table as part of German reunification talks. But whether or not it was open for discussion, no commitment was, in fact, made and Gorbachev has himself—after inspiring the myth by a vague statement about a feeling of betrayal at NATO expansion—acknowledged that and gone further and saying that a commitment on the issue was never even discussed as part of the negotiations. Saying something could be part of a deal as an inducement to get someone to the negotiating table doesn't automatically insert it into the deal, or even guarantee it gets talked about in the negotiation.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> No one promised that NATO will not expand, and it is not documented Gorbachev, whose ambiguous statement about a feeling of betrayal when NATO did expand in the east beyond the reunited Germany is the source of the myth of the promise, later explicitly stated that no promise was made and the issue was never even brought up. (And it's not as if the USSR and the USA didn’t understand the use of memorializing important agreements in writing to prevent later disputes about their scope and content.)