3 ms·

And expanding NATO right up to their borders after we promised them we wouldn't, has nothing to do with it? https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-de

by _dain_ 5y ago

And expanding NATO right up to their borders after we promised them we wouldn't, has nothing to do with it? https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassified-documents-gorbachev-told-nato-wouldnt-23629 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/newly-declassifie...

shirly88 5y ago
eternalban 5y ago
To get a sense of the propaganda aspect of this "promised" business you need to ask yourself the question "Why did not the Soviets/Russians accept verbal private promises as the basis for arms control?" Agreements regarding matters of such strategic gravity are always written down and signed by the involved parties. The expansion of NATO clearly was and remains as strategic a concern (to all parties) whether then or now. Note, for example, Russia's current demand for a "written legally binding response". So we are either to assume Soviet team (Gorbachev et al.) were either incompetent or assets of the West, or, USSR capitulated and was not in a position to make legal binding demands regarding NATO and had to be satisfied with warm non-binding backroom reassurances. I think it is the latter, and now, post Soviet Russia (caught between a pincer of Europe and China) believes it has a stronger hand and wants to re-negotiate.
satori99 5y ago
Were those assurances made to The Soviet Union or the Russian Federation that followed it?
- eternalban 5y ago
  It is irrelevant and a red-herring. Great power agreements are written legal documents. There was no agreement and thus the question of continuity of the non-agreement is meaningless.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  Were actual binding commitments made, Russia would have inherited them as successor in interest. But no one pushing this Russian propaganda line can point to anything that even remotely resembles even a personal (much less binding international) commitment, just a few instances around 1990-1991 where Western leaders indicated that they (depending on which statement or communication it is) either were not immediately prepared for or did not immediately envision further eastward deployment of troops of expansion of NATO.
dragonwriter 5y ago
Despite the spin in the generalities, none of the specifics cited in the article support, or are even consistent with, a commitment. “not ready to deploy” in 1990, "could not foresee circumstances” in 1991. These aren't open-ended commitments, but exactly the opposite.
lom 5y ago
And the Budapest Memorandum means nothing to you? https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P... Every country can make their own decisions regarding their international treaties and alliances. The NATO expansion is also not something that’s happening against the will of the people in eastern countries. After the Crimea annexation, most countries in that sphere of influence turned anti-russia and more pro-nato. The majority of Ukrainians is currently also pro joining the NATO. > Since June 2014, polls showed that about 50% of those asked supported Ukrainian NATO membership. Some 69% of Ukrainians want to join NATO, according to a June 2017 poll by the Democratic Initiatives Foundation, compared to 28% support in 2012 when Yanukovych was in power
mrighele 5y ago
Do we have any proof of this promise ? Because Gorbachev himself said it was not made [1] The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.” [1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-...

by _dain_ 5y ago

shirly88 5y ago

eternalban 5y ago

To get a sense of the propaganda aspect of this "promised" business you need to ask yourself the question "Why did not the Soviets/Russians accept verbal private promises as the basis for arms control?" Agreements regarding matters of such strategic gravity are always written down and signed by the involved parties. The expansion of NATO clearly was and remains as strategic a concern (to all parties) whether then or now. Note, for example, Russia's current demand for a "written legally binding response". So we are either to assume Soviet team (Gorbachev et al.) were either incompetent or assets of the West, or, USSR capitulated and was not in a position to make legal binding demands regarding NATO and had to be satisfied with warm non-binding backroom reassurances. I think it is the latter, and now, post Soviet Russia (caught between a pincer of Europe and China) believes it has a stronger hand and wants to re-negotiate.

satori99 5y ago

Were those assurances made to The Soviet Union or the Russian Federation that followed it?

eternalban 5y ago
It is irrelevant and a red-herring. Great power agreements are written legal documents. There was no agreement and thus the question of continuity of the non-agreement is meaningless.
dragonwriter 5y ago
Were actual binding commitments made, Russia would have inherited them as successor in interest. But no one pushing this Russian propaganda line can point to anything that even remotely resembles even a personal (much less binding international) commitment, just a few instances around 1990-1991 where Western leaders indicated that they (depending on which statement or communication it is) either were not immediately prepared for or did not immediately envision further eastward deployment of troops of expansion of NATO.

dragonwriter 5y ago

Despite the spin in the generalities, none of the specifics cited in the article support, or are even consistent with, a commitment. “not ready to deploy” in 1990, "could not foresee circumstances” in 1991. These aren't open-ended commitments, but exactly the opposite.

lom 5y ago

And the Budapest Memorandum means nothing to you? https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P... Every country can make their own decisions regarding their international treaties and alliances. The NATO expansion is also not something that’s happening against the will of the people in eastern countries. After the Crimea annexation, most countries in that sphere of influence turned anti-russia and more pro-nato. The majority of Ukrainians is currently also pro joining the NATO. > Since June 2014, polls showed that about 50% of those asked supported Ukrainian NATO membership. Some 69% of Ukrainians want to join NATO, according to a June 2017 poll by the Democratic Initiatives Foundation, compared to 28% support in 2012 when Yanukovych was in power

mrighele 5y ago

Do we have any proof of this promise ? Because Gorbachev himself said it was not made [1] The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.” [1] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-...