11 ms·

Putin is currently playing out the same game as he did in 2008 in Georgia. Abkhazia and South Ossetia aren't formerly part of Russia; their existence merely gua

by wazoox 5y ago

Putin is currently playing out the same game as he did in 2008 in Georgia. Abkhazia and South Ossetia aren't formerly part of Russia; their existence merely guarantee that Georgia cannot be part of NATO. That's the plan: preventing forever Ukraine from being part of NATO. That's been the constant demand or Russia since Gorbachev, Yeltsin, etc. So the pseudo-republics of Donetsk and Luhansk will remain forever, just for this purpose.

jmyeet 5y ago
This is the best comment on this thread. I've actually been surprised how State Department propaganda ("anonymous sources within the State Department / Pentagon / White House") is transmitted unfiltered on the media, particularly after so many incidents of it being wrong (WMDs anyone?). It's also so sad to see how pro-Imperialist the suppposed Left is. Worse is how easily so many seem to accept this narrative. The US promised NATO wouldn't expand east in 1990 and then immediately reneged on it and has done so repeatedly since to the point where NATO is knocking on Russia's door. Russia absolutely does not want Ukraine in NATO. I guess that's the line in the sand. This draws predictable "It's Ukraine's choice" calls but when you provide an analogy like "How would the US feel about China or Russia building military and forward operating bases in Mexico or China along the US border?" it gets dismissed like "that would never happen", which of course doesn't answer the question. Yep, Russian troops have entered Ukraine and that's bad. But it's not a war... yet. And Putin isn't a madman. This is a high-stakes move to keep Ukraine out of NATO and the West really needs to reconsider our position on this because it's not unreasonable. More to the point, is it worth igniting a war over Ukraine? Really?
- simplyaccont 5y ago
  is there some specific memorandum of understanding or something with promise not to expand NATO east ?
  - croes 5y ago
    It's complicated https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-is-vladimir-putin-right-a-bf318d2c-7aeb-4b59-8d5f-1d8c94e1964d https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-e...
    - simplyaccont 5y ago
      in other words - no
      - croes 5y ago
        In others words they avoided it being written down like the germans avoided calling the Two plus Four agreement a peace treaty. Political trickery. That may have worked for the germans to prevent paying reparations to greece, but the NATO trick lead to the problems we now have with russia. Remember how the US reacted to some missiles in Cuba?
        simplyaccont 5y ago
        problem with russia is not nato but putin's head. if you had listen to his speech yesterday, nato is just a pretext because people need enemy to unite against. in reality he wants ussr back (he was complaining yesterday that republics were allowed to leave ussr to easily and ukraine is not a real country but something made up by lenin and stalin). he wants back the glory of soviet empire.
        croes 5y ago
        Things don't happen in a vacuum. Putin is a result of what happened under Yeltsin, where some people got very rich and the rest had to suffer.
    - jmyeet 5y ago
      Relevant quote: > But the recollections of those involved aren’t always consistent. Roland Dumas, who served as the French foreign minister in 1990, would later say that a pledge was made that NATO troops would not advance closer to the territory of the former Soviet Union. But the U.S. secretary of state at the time, James Baker, has denied that any such promise was ever made – a claim that some of his own diplomats, however, have contradicted. Jack Matlock, who was the U.S. ambassador to Moscow at the time, has said that "categorical assurances" were given to the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand eastward. Even if you deny that such a promise was made (and broken), you should be able to understand how having a hostile military alliance literally on your border is unacceptable and the US would never accept it were the tables turned. That's the point. There are no good guys here. Go back to the Cuban Missile Crisis. There's a popular narrative of the US being provoked. But the truth is, the US instigated the Cuban Missile Crisis by deploying strategic nuclear weapons to Turkey (interestingly under the auspices of NATO, a "defensive" pact). Cuba was reciprocity. Those missiles in Turkey were quietly removed.
  - cowwander 5y ago
    This is a very well known agreement. Search for writing on HW Bush's Secretary of State James Baker agreeing to Gorbachev that NATO would expand "not another inch" eastward. Much has been written about this, and it is considered ~first principles~ level knowledge on the topic of Russia/Ukraine. Putin came of political age when that agreement was reneged, and it is speculated that this is weighs heavily on his list of grievances with the US.
    - simplyaccont 5y ago
      can you please show me this agreement ?
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > This is a very well known agreement. It's a very well known non-agreement. > James Baker agreeing to Gorbachev that NATO would expand "not another inch" eastward That's...not how binding international agreements are formed.
      - cowwander 5y ago
        >That's...not how binding international agreements are formed. Thank you, this is exactly the point I arrived at as well. It's an admission that the primary tool of the US State Department is to make friendly, reasonable verbal agreements in front of the press and public, then do the dirty move they really wanted to do when the news cycle has moved past. This maintains the appearance to the US public that their foreign policy is always just, and never cynical or deceitful.
      - justsomehnguy 5y ago
        US: says one thing and do the other one EVERYONE: claps RUSSIA: says one thing and do the other one EVERYONE: gasps
        darkarmani 5y ago
        Your false equivalence is around Russia INVADING a country after saying it was just doing military exercises.
  - avgcorrection 5y ago
    https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
  - wazoox 5y ago
    Not really. However the position of Russians has been absolutely constant. See these excerpts from talks between Gorbachev and James Baker, Baker and Chevarnadze, with the famous "verbal assurances": https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Promises-no-expansion-NATO-eastward-USSR-1990-Gorbatchev-v1-en-2048x1595.jpg https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Promise... Yeltsin in this telex to Bill Clinton from 1993: https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/otan-expansion-65.jpg https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/otan-ex... Reported in the NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/02/world/yeltsin-opposes-expansion-of-nato-in-eastern-europe.html https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/02/world/yeltsin-opposes-exp... Then came a promise from Secretary of state Christopher on 10/22/93 that there would be no extension: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16380-document-08-secretary-christopher-s-meeting https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16380-document-08-secreta... However Richard Holbrooke changed his discourse, and Yeltsin complained in 94: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16385-document-13-official-informal-no-248-boris-bill https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16385-document-13-officia... Then again: https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/NT-front-page.jpg https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/NT-fron... However, Yeltsine nearly died in 96, and his election relied entirely on manipulations at a large scale from the CIA. Therefore, Clinton thought he was free to proceed with NATO extension: https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Perry-page1.png https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Perry-p... But there was large disapproval from the Russian, like Gorbachev still in this Herald Tribune 1997 guest article: https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/otan-expansion-61-2048x1905.jpg https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/otan-ex... But in the US too, like George Kennan in the NYTimes, 1997: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.h... and many others, Michael Mandelbaum,Richard T. Davis, John Lewis Gaddis, even Thomas Friedman thought extending NATO was a serious mistake. > Privately, though, a few more perceptive officials acknowledged that relations with Russia had not been handled well. In his memoir, Duty, Robert M. Gates, who served as secretary of defense in the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, made some interesting admissions. “When I reported to the president my take on the Munich conference, I shared my belief that from 1993 onward, the West, and particularly the United States, had badly underestimated the magnitude of the Russian humiliation in losing the Cold War…” Yet even that blunt assessment given to Bush did not fully capture Gates’ views on the issue. “What I didn’t tell the president was that I believed the relationship with Russia had been badly mismanaged after [George H.W.] Bush left office in 1993.” Among other missteps, “U.S. agreements with the Romanian and Bulgarian governments to rotate troops through bases in those countries was a needless provocation.” In an implicit rebuke to the younger Bush, Gates asserted that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching.” That move, he contended, was a case of “recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests.” https://www.cato.org/commentary/did-putins-2007-munich-speech-predict-ukraine-crisis# https://www.cato.org/commentary/did-putins-2007-munich-speec... Also, there's the treachery of the 2011 Libya operation : https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/libye-01.jpg https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/libye-0...
  - fsckboy 5y ago
    So much attention is paid to the hazy question of technicalities of NATO membership, I think it's important to note that Russia agreed to very specific terms with respect to Ukraine and accepting it's borders and rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine 1. The Russian Federation, the UK and the US reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine 2. The Russian Federation, the UK and the US reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3. The Russian Federation, the UK and the US reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The US promised NATO wouldn't expand east No, it didn't, at least in any way which anyone who is qualified for even an entry-level position in any diplomatic service on Earth would mistake for a binding commitment even on the then-current administration, much less indefinitely into the future. (The most commonly cited statement on this is actually a reference to deployment of troops within United Germany in the near term post-unification, and the second most commonly cited does refer to NATO expansion but is a communication of items that could be on the table for discussion if Russia was willing to come to the table on German unification, not a commitment; but there also some claims that some other private communication not reduced to a binding international agreement occurred.) If it had made such a promise to the USSR in a binding way, we could discuss, based on the specific form of the agreement and the subsequent diplomatic action relevant to it after the fall of the USSR whether it was still binding between any parties and which nation or nations were the USSR’s successors in interest and what were the legal effects were of any potential disunity between those parties. But since it didn't, the whole set of questions is moot. > and then immediately reneged on it NATO expansion to Eastern European nations beyond the former East Germany didn't occur until 1999, which is not “immediately” after an event alleged to have happened in 1990.
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    >No, it didn't, at least in any way which anyone who is qualified for even an entry-level position in any diplomatic service on Earth would mistake for a binding commitment even on the then-current administration, much less indefinitely into the future. Oh yeah? From the former Ambassador to Soviet Union (1987-1991), Jeff Matlock [1]: >One persistent U.S. demand is that Ukraine’s territorial integrity be restored. Indeed, the U.S. is party to the Budapest Memorandum in which Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in return for Ukraine’s transfer of Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia for destruction in accord with U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements. What the U.S. demand ignores is that, under traditional international law, agreements remain valid rebus sic stantibus (things remaining the same). >When the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 there was no plan to expand NATO to the east and Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand. When in fact it did expand right up to Russia’s borders, Russia was confronted with a radically different strategic situation than existed when the Budapest agreement was signed. What annoys me about this discussion is that people continue to say none of this matters because there wasn't a treaty signed with Soviet Union - an entity that does not exist anymore - and this somehow means that anything said in the past also doesn't matter. It certainly matters in the minds of people escalating things in Eastern Ukraine right now. So it certainly isn't "moot". How in the world is that question "moot" if it's the driving reason behind Russia's perspective in this? You can disagree with Russia's security perspective, and that's fine. But to just toss out the NATO expansion as "moot" is both historically inaccurate, and borders on deliberately ignorant as if Russia is not allowed its own security concerns in the first place. There's several other dimensions of this discussion that aren't happening at all - e.g. what NATO is even supposed to be doing in the 21st century 30 years after its raison d'être evaporated, what continued maintenance of American Empire in Europe means for both Europe and the United States and whether that's really in everyone's best interest, and how the alliance actually stacks up against a recalcitrant China in the Pacific Theater or if it is really even charted to do that - because we're so obsessed with Russia for reasons that are probably best left unstated for now. Inb4 I get accused of "apologizing" for Russia's actions here, I'm not. What they're doing is imo a long-term strategic blunder that will cost lives in the near-term. It's also wrong that the default position in the West right now is "Russia's concerns aren't legitimate QED". [1] https://www.krasnoevents.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/116679777/krasno_analysis_-_matlock_ukraine_-_dec._2021.pdf https://www.krasnoevents.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/116679777/krasn... edit: grammar
- nocturnial 5y ago
  At first, I would've agreed with your position but I don't at this point. Russia said they wouldn't invade Ukraine because: -Russia is holding military exercises, you're being paranoid -Nobody invades a european country on a wednesday (ok, that's true. They did it on a tuesday) -Russia is pulling back troops. -Russia will pull back troops as soon as the military exercises are done. So (previous) sunday. (or not!) -Russia isn't invading Ukraine, we're just sending peacekeeping forces into the region that we declared independent of Ukraine. etc... These aren't negotiation tactics to resolve future NATO membership concerns. These are stall tactics to position their military. What Russia did strengthens the resolve of Ukraine to seek an alliance with NATO although they wouldn't qualify for membership. The more likely reason is that Russia hopes to undermine NATO. By taking Ukraine and putting themselves at the border of NATO countries, they can test if there's going to be a 2 tiered NATO. Countries for which the alliance is willing to invoke art. 5, and countries they are willing to abandon to avoid a world war.
  - vkou 5y ago
    Technically, Ukraine joining NATO would have also put Russia at the border of NATO countries. And it seems obvious to me that it would prefer a neutral buffer zone, instead of encirclement. Removing the first option from the table in 2013 forced the question of the second one. I can't see how any of this could have worked out well, starting from the moment that Ukraine membership in NATO became a serious political subject.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      > Technically, Ukraine joining NATO would have also put Russia at the border of NATO countries Technically, Ukraine’s entire population being whisked into another dimension and its borders being impassable walls of force would also put Russia at the border of NATO countries (as would, for that matter, NATO not expanding after 1949), because Norway (1949), Lithuania (2004), Latvia (2004), Estonia (2004), and Poland (1999) all exist (and Lithuania and Poland surround a non-contiguous piece of Russia, even.) And that's just counting land borders, otherwise you have to also consider the USA (1949), Turkey (1952), and Bulgaria and Romania (2004).
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  > More to the point, is it worth igniting a war over Ukraine? Really? That's a very good question for Putin, try asking it and enjoy gulag or sudden inexplicable death/disappearance. What the fuck gives one state (Russia) right to dictate what sovereign countries do and don't do? I get this cold war mentality, it was the heyday of Russia, moving pawns, fighting wars, being global badass with some serious respect unlike now, doing whatever they wanted. That's over for 30 years, and the only one to blame is Russians themselves, and their fucked up mentality. But Putin would like some 21st century version of the same. In same way I hated US for the invasion of Iraq based on pure lies, which were clearly lies to everybody I knew even when Bush jr was presenting them in UN (remember the US senators' cries about changing 'french fries' to 'freedom fries' when France and Germany refused to support this bullshit? Look where it led Iraq and surrounding countries. Not even going into topic of Afghanistan). I come from eastern Europe. We were invaded overnight by russian (and V4, but mostly russian) troops in 1968 for the great sin of wanting to live in freedom from communist terror of previous decades. Just like Hungarians a decade before. This ain't something to forget. Even if I wasn't alive back then, my parents were and its very good to listen to elders in such cases, they have good stories to tell, lessons to learn. Hard earned lessons of oppressed lives which could never reach their potentials.
  - glogla 5y ago
    Realistically, the Western Powers not giving shit and not doing anything effective about both all the previous Russian invasions and this one gives Russia the right. And make no mistake, the West is quite fine with sacrificing us (everything east of Germany) all rather than doing anything effective.
    - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
      As the West west of us was and still is ready to do with Germany. We are parking spaces to them at best.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> Putin is currently playing out the same game as he did in 2008 in Georgia. Abkhazia and South Ossetia aren't formerly part of Russia; their existence merely guarantee that Georgia cannot be part of NATO. They don't actually guarantee that, there is no formal bar to admitting a country with active disputes to NATO; and even if there were it would take agreement of exactly the same parties as are required to admit a new member to either eliminate or modify the formal requirement. Also, the new regions aren't necessary for that if it was a bar because of the occupation of Crimea since 2014.
- vkou 5y ago
  > They don't actually guarantee that, there is no formal bar to admitting a country with active disputes to NATO There's no formal bar, but it would be politically difficult. (Because now you either need to ignore your newest member's problems, or commit to a war that you didn't even want to fight.) The former significantly undermines confidence in the organization, the latter... Ties it to actually fighting a war (with all the nasty ways in which it can escalate), as opposed to muttering about sanctions. Out of the US, France, the UK, and Germany, which of those four countries do you think want to fight a shooting war with Russia? At the moment, the answer is 'none of the above'. Implementing sanctions is comparatively easy, though.
elzbardico 5y ago
Exactly. That's the real reason behind all of this. Just like the US didn't want soviet missiles in Cuba, the Russians don't want American missiles in Ukraine.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  The example contemporary to that Cold War incident was American missiles in Turkey, which is even more apropos.
- ohwellish 5y ago
  real reason is in Ukraine becoming strong independent democratic country which is a direct threat to kleptocratic russian regime still far from it, but this escalation indicates Ukraine is one a right path
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    Ukraine strong democratic country. ahahahahahahashhah Really man. You’re not supposed to believe in the propaganda. Only to pretend you believe.
    - ohwellish 5y ago
      I didnt said it is, what I've said is - becoming, there's a difference and it isnt a propaganda but my own opinion
  - wazoox 5y ago
- darkarmani 5y ago
  What missiles were going to end up in Ukraine? In Cuba, there was an actual plan in progress for missiles. This is just an excuse to invade the Ukraine.
kkoncevicius 5y ago
This is also Chomsky's position from back when he was talking about the Crimea crisis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq5IlDB-Ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq5IlDB-Ago

by wazoox 5y ago

jmyeet 5y ago

This is the best comment on this thread. I've actually been surprised how State Department propaganda ("anonymous sources within the State Department / Pentagon / White House") is transmitted unfiltered on the media, particularly after so many incidents of it being wrong (WMDs anyone?). It's also so sad to see how pro-Imperialist the suppposed Left is. Worse is how easily so many seem to accept this narrative. The US promised NATO wouldn't expand east in 1990 and then immediately reneged on it and has done so repeatedly since to the point where NATO is knocking on Russia's door. Russia absolutely does not want Ukraine in NATO. I guess that's the line in the sand. This draws predictable "It's Ukraine's choice" calls but when you provide an analogy like "How would the US feel about China or Russia building military and forward operating bases in Mexico or China along the US border?" it gets dismissed like "that would never happen", which of course doesn't answer the question. Yep, Russian troops have entered Ukraine and that's bad. But it's not a war... yet. And Putin isn't a madman. This is a high-stakes move to keep Ukraine out of NATO and the West really needs to reconsider our position on this because it's not unreasonable. More to the point, is it worth igniting a war over Ukraine? Really?

simplyaccont 5y ago
is there some specific memorandum of understanding or something with promise not to expand NATO east ?
- croes 5y ago
  It's complicated https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-is-vladimir-putin-right-a-bf318d2c-7aeb-4b59-8d5f-1d8c94e1964d https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-e...
  - simplyaccont 5y ago
    in other words - no
    - croes 5y ago
      In others words they avoided it being written down like the germans avoided calling the Two plus Four agreement a peace treaty. Political trickery. That may have worked for the germans to prevent paying reparations to greece, but the NATO trick lead to the problems we now have with russia. Remember how the US reacted to some missiles in Cuba?
      - simplyaccont 5y ago
        problem with russia is not nato but putin's head. if you had listen to his speech yesterday, nato is just a pretext because people need enemy to unite against. in reality he wants ussr back (he was complaining yesterday that republics were allowed to leave ussr to easily and ukraine is not a real country but something made up by lenin and stalin). he wants back the glory of soviet empire.
        croes 5y ago
        Things don't happen in a vacuum. Putin is a result of what happened under Yeltsin, where some people got very rich and the rest had to suffer.
  - jmyeet 5y ago
    Relevant quote: > But the recollections of those involved aren’t always consistent. Roland Dumas, who served as the French foreign minister in 1990, would later say that a pledge was made that NATO troops would not advance closer to the territory of the former Soviet Union. But the U.S. secretary of state at the time, James Baker, has denied that any such promise was ever made – a claim that some of his own diplomats, however, have contradicted. Jack Matlock, who was the U.S. ambassador to Moscow at the time, has said that "categorical assurances" were given to the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand eastward. Even if you deny that such a promise was made (and broken), you should be able to understand how having a hostile military alliance literally on your border is unacceptable and the US would never accept it were the tables turned. That's the point. There are no good guys here. Go back to the Cuban Missile Crisis. There's a popular narrative of the US being provoked. But the truth is, the US instigated the Cuban Missile Crisis by deploying strategic nuclear weapons to Turkey (interestingly under the auspices of NATO, a "defensive" pact). Cuba was reciprocity. Those missiles in Turkey were quietly removed.
- cowwander 5y ago
  This is a very well known agreement. Search for writing on HW Bush's Secretary of State James Baker agreeing to Gorbachev that NATO would expand "not another inch" eastward. Much has been written about this, and it is considered ~first principles~ level knowledge on the topic of Russia/Ukraine. Putin came of political age when that agreement was reneged, and it is speculated that this is weighs heavily on his list of grievances with the US.
  - simplyaccont 5y ago
    can you please show me this agreement ?
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > This is a very well known agreement. It's a very well known non-agreement. > James Baker agreeing to Gorbachev that NATO would expand "not another inch" eastward That's...not how binding international agreements are formed.
    - cowwander 5y ago
      >That's...not how binding international agreements are formed. Thank you, this is exactly the point I arrived at as well. It's an admission that the primary tool of the US State Department is to make friendly, reasonable verbal agreements in front of the press and public, then do the dirty move they really wanted to do when the news cycle has moved past. This maintains the appearance to the US public that their foreign policy is always just, and never cynical or deceitful.
    - justsomehnguy 5y ago
      US: says one thing and do the other one EVERYONE: claps RUSSIA: says one thing and do the other one EVERYONE: gasps
      - darkarmani 5y ago
        Your false equivalence is around Russia INVADING a country after saying it was just doing military exercises.
- avgcorrection 5y ago
  https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...
- wazoox 5y ago
  Not really. However the position of Russians has been absolutely constant. See these excerpts from talks between Gorbachev and James Baker, Baker and Chevarnadze, with the famous "verbal assurances": https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Promises-no-expansion-NATO-eastward-USSR-1990-Gorbatchev-v1-en-2048x1595.jpg https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Promise... Yeltsin in this telex to Bill Clinton from 1993: https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/otan-expansion-65.jpg https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/otan-ex... Reported in the NYTimes: https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/02/world/yeltsin-opposes-expansion-of-nato-in-eastern-europe.html https://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/02/world/yeltsin-opposes-exp... Then came a promise from Secretary of state Christopher on 10/22/93 that there would be no extension: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16380-document-08-secretary-christopher-s-meeting https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16380-document-08-secreta... However Richard Holbrooke changed his discourse, and Yeltsin complained in 94: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16385-document-13-official-informal-no-248-boris-bill https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16385-document-13-officia... Then again: https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/NT-front-page.jpg https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/NT-fron... However, Yeltsine nearly died in 96, and his election relied entirely on manipulations at a large scale from the CIA. Therefore, Clinton thought he was free to proceed with NATO extension: https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Perry-page1.png https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Perry-p... But there was large disapproval from the Russian, like Gorbachev still in this Herald Tribune 1997 guest article: https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/otan-expansion-61-2048x1905.jpg https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/otan-ex... But in the US too, like George Kennan in the NYTimes, 1997: https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.html https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.h... and many others, Michael Mandelbaum,Richard T. Davis, John Lewis Gaddis, even Thomas Friedman thought extending NATO was a serious mistake. > Privately, though, a few more perceptive officials acknowledged that relations with Russia had not been handled well. In his memoir, Duty, Robert M. Gates, who served as secretary of defense in the administrations of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, made some interesting admissions. “When I reported to the president my take on the Munich conference, I shared my belief that from 1993 onward, the West, and particularly the United States, had badly underestimated the magnitude of the Russian humiliation in losing the Cold War…” Yet even that blunt assessment given to Bush did not fully capture Gates’ views on the issue. “What I didn’t tell the president was that I believed the relationship with Russia had been badly mismanaged after [George H.W.] Bush left office in 1993.” Among other missteps, “U.S. agreements with the Romanian and Bulgarian governments to rotate troops through bases in those countries was a needless provocation.” In an implicit rebuke to the younger Bush, Gates asserted that “trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching.” That move, he contended, was a case of “recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests.” https://www.cato.org/commentary/did-putins-2007-munich-speech-predict-ukraine-crisis# https://www.cato.org/commentary/did-putins-2007-munich-speec... Also, there's the treachery of the 2011 Libya operation : https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/libye-01.jpg https://www.les-crises.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/libye-0...
- fsckboy 5y ago
  So much attention is paid to the hazy question of technicalities of NATO membership, I think it's important to note that Russia agreed to very specific terms with respect to Ukraine and accepting it's borders and rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Ukraine 1. The Russian Federation, the UK and the US reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine 2. The Russian Federation, the UK and the US reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 3. The Russian Federation, the UK and the US reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> The US promised NATO wouldn't expand east No, it didn't, at least in any way which anyone who is qualified for even an entry-level position in any diplomatic service on Earth would mistake for a binding commitment even on the then-current administration, much less indefinitely into the future. (The most commonly cited statement on this is actually a reference to deployment of troops within United Germany in the near term post-unification, and the second most commonly cited does refer to NATO expansion but is a communication of items that could be on the table for discussion if Russia was willing to come to the table on German unification, not a commitment; but there also some claims that some other private communication not reduced to a binding international agreement occurred.) If it had made such a promise to the USSR in a binding way, we could discuss, based on the specific form of the agreement and the subsequent diplomatic action relevant to it after the fall of the USSR whether it was still binding between any parties and which nation or nations were the USSR’s successors in interest and what were the legal effects were of any potential disunity between those parties. But since it didn't, the whole set of questions is moot. > and then immediately reneged on it NATO expansion to Eastern European nations beyond the former East Germany didn't occur until 1999, which is not “immediately” after an event alleged to have happened in 1990.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  >No, it didn't, at least in any way which anyone who is qualified for even an entry-level position in any diplomatic service on Earth would mistake for a binding commitment even on the then-current administration, much less indefinitely into the future. Oh yeah? From the former Ambassador to Soviet Union (1987-1991), Jeff Matlock [1]: >One persistent U.S. demand is that Ukraine’s territorial integrity be restored. Indeed, the U.S. is party to the Budapest Memorandum in which Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity in return for Ukraine’s transfer of Soviet nuclear weapons to Russia for destruction in accord with U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements. What the U.S. demand ignores is that, under traditional international law, agreements remain valid rebus sic stantibus (things remaining the same). >When the Budapest memorandum was signed in 1994 there was no plan to expand NATO to the east and Gorbachev had been assured in 1990 that the alliance would not expand. When in fact it did expand right up to Russia’s borders, Russia was confronted with a radically different strategic situation than existed when the Budapest agreement was signed. What annoys me about this discussion is that people continue to say none of this matters because there wasn't a treaty signed with Soviet Union - an entity that does not exist anymore - and this somehow means that anything said in the past also doesn't matter. It certainly matters in the minds of people escalating things in Eastern Ukraine right now. So it certainly isn't "moot". How in the world is that question "moot" if it's the driving reason behind Russia's perspective in this? You can disagree with Russia's security perspective, and that's fine. But to just toss out the NATO expansion as "moot" is both historically inaccurate, and borders on deliberately ignorant as if Russia is not allowed its own security concerns in the first place. There's several other dimensions of this discussion that aren't happening at all - e.g. what NATO is even supposed to be doing in the 21st century 30 years after its raison d'être evaporated, what continued maintenance of American Empire in Europe means for both Europe and the United States and whether that's really in everyone's best interest, and how the alliance actually stacks up against a recalcitrant China in the Pacific Theater or if it is really even charted to do that - because we're so obsessed with Russia for reasons that are probably best left unstated for now. Inb4 I get accused of "apologizing" for Russia's actions here, I'm not. What they're doing is imo a long-term strategic blunder that will cost lives in the near-term. It's also wrong that the default position in the West right now is "Russia's concerns aren't legitimate QED". [1] https://www.krasnoevents.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/116679777/krasno_analysis_-_matlock_ukraine_-_dec._2021.pdf https://www.krasnoevents.com/uploads/1/1/6/6/116679777/krasn... edit: grammar
nocturnial 5y ago
At first, I would've agreed with your position but I don't at this point. Russia said they wouldn't invade Ukraine because: -Russia is holding military exercises, you're being paranoid -Nobody invades a european country on a wednesday (ok, that's true. They did it on a tuesday) -Russia is pulling back troops. -Russia will pull back troops as soon as the military exercises are done. So (previous) sunday. (or not!) -Russia isn't invading Ukraine, we're just sending peacekeeping forces into the region that we declared independent of Ukraine. etc... These aren't negotiation tactics to resolve future NATO membership concerns. These are stall tactics to position their military. What Russia did strengthens the resolve of Ukraine to seek an alliance with NATO although they wouldn't qualify for membership. The more likely reason is that Russia hopes to undermine NATO. By taking Ukraine and putting themselves at the border of NATO countries, they can test if there's going to be a 2 tiered NATO. Countries for which the alliance is willing to invoke art. 5, and countries they are willing to abandon to avoid a world war.
- vkou 5y ago
  Technically, Ukraine joining NATO would have also put Russia at the border of NATO countries. And it seems obvious to me that it would prefer a neutral buffer zone, instead of encirclement. Removing the first option from the table in 2013 forced the question of the second one. I can't see how any of this could have worked out well, starting from the moment that Ukraine membership in NATO became a serious political subject.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > Technically, Ukraine joining NATO would have also put Russia at the border of NATO countries Technically, Ukraine’s entire population being whisked into another dimension and its borders being impassable walls of force would also put Russia at the border of NATO countries (as would, for that matter, NATO not expanding after 1949), because Norway (1949), Lithuania (2004), Latvia (2004), Estonia (2004), and Poland (1999) all exist (and Lithuania and Poland surround a non-contiguous piece of Russia, even.) And that's just counting land borders, otherwise you have to also consider the USA (1949), Turkey (1952), and Bulgaria and Romania (2004).
saiya-jin 5y ago
> More to the point, is it worth igniting a war over Ukraine? Really? That's a very good question for Putin, try asking it and enjoy gulag or sudden inexplicable death/disappearance. What the fuck gives one state (Russia) right to dictate what sovereign countries do and don't do? I get this cold war mentality, it was the heyday of Russia, moving pawns, fighting wars, being global badass with some serious respect unlike now, doing whatever they wanted. That's over for 30 years, and the only one to blame is Russians themselves, and their fucked up mentality. But Putin would like some 21st century version of the same. In same way I hated US for the invasion of Iraq based on pure lies, which were clearly lies to everybody I knew even when Bush jr was presenting them in UN (remember the US senators' cries about changing 'french fries' to 'freedom fries' when France and Germany refused to support this bullshit? Look where it led Iraq and surrounding countries. Not even going into topic of Afghanistan). I come from eastern Europe. We were invaded overnight by russian (and V4, but mostly russian) troops in 1968 for the great sin of wanting to live in freedom from communist terror of previous decades. Just like Hungarians a decade before. This ain't something to forget. Even if I wasn't alive back then, my parents were and its very good to listen to elders in such cases, they have good stories to tell, lessons to learn. Hard earned lessons of oppressed lives which could never reach their potentials.
- glogla 5y ago
  Realistically, the Western Powers not giving shit and not doing anything effective about both all the previous Russian invasions and this one gives Russia the right. And make no mistake, the West is quite fine with sacrificing us (everything east of Germany) all rather than doing anything effective.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    As the West west of us was and still is ready to do with Germany. We are parking spaces to them at best.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> Putin is currently playing out the same game as he did in 2008 in Georgia. Abkhazia and South Ossetia aren't formerly part of Russia; their existence merely guarantee that Georgia cannot be part of NATO. They don't actually guarantee that, there is no formal bar to admitting a country with active disputes to NATO; and even if there were it would take agreement of exactly the same parties as are required to admit a new member to either eliminate or modify the formal requirement. Also, the new regions aren't necessary for that if it was a bar because of the occupation of Crimea since 2014.

vkou 5y ago
> They don't actually guarantee that, there is no formal bar to admitting a country with active disputes to NATO There's no formal bar, but it would be politically difficult. (Because now you either need to ignore your newest member's problems, or commit to a war that you didn't even want to fight.) The former significantly undermines confidence in the organization, the latter... Ties it to actually fighting a war (with all the nasty ways in which it can escalate), as opposed to muttering about sanctions. Out of the US, France, the UK, and Germany, which of those four countries do you think want to fight a shooting war with Russia? At the moment, the answer is 'none of the above'. Implementing sanctions is comparatively easy, though.

elzbardico 5y ago

Exactly. That's the real reason behind all of this. Just like the US didn't want soviet missiles in Cuba, the Russians don't want American missiles in Ukraine.

avgcorrection 5y ago
The example contemporary to that Cold War incident was American missiles in Turkey, which is even more apropos.
ohwellish 5y ago
real reason is in Ukraine becoming strong independent democratic country which is a direct threat to kleptocratic russian regime still far from it, but this escalation indicates Ukraine is one a right path
- elzbardico 5y ago
  Ukraine strong democratic country. ahahahahahahashhah Really man. You’re not supposed to believe in the propaganda. Only to pretend you believe.
  - ohwellish 5y ago
    I didnt said it is, what I've said is - becoming, there's a difference and it isnt a propaganda but my own opinion
- wazoox 5y ago
darkarmani 5y ago
What missiles were going to end up in Ukraine? In Cuba, there was an actual plan in progress for missiles. This is just an excuse to invade the Ukraine.

kkoncevicius 5y ago

This is also Chomsky's position from back when he was talking about the Crimea crisis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq5IlDB-Ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq5IlDB-Ago