4 ms·

>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 bindin

>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

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> 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. NATO's raison d'être evaporated? Pretty sure Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland (at a minimum) don't agree with that. It's the same it's always been - keep Russia from marching west across Europe. A bunch of countries in Europe still think that's important, and that it needs a credible military force to accomplish it. Russia's actions in Georgia and Ukraine do not give warm feelings of security to small countries on Russia's periphery.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  NATO was not created to protect Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Those countries were part of Soviet Union at the time, and joined after its collapse.
astine 5y ago
">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." And this gives Russia permission to invade a sovereign nation? Ukraine's independence is not just a matter of the Budapest Memorandum, it's a matter of the wishes of the Ukrainian people who have wanted independence from Russia for centuries, something many Russians don't want to acknowledge. So far, NATO has not invaded Russia or violated its territorial sovereignty but Russia has violated the borders of multiple boarder states, so it's a bit rich for Putin to complain about NATO when he's clearly just trying to reincorporate border states that were conquered by the Tzars.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

> 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. NATO's raison d'être evaporated? Pretty sure Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland (at a minimum) don't agree with that. It's the same it's always been - keep Russia from marching west across Europe. A bunch of countries in Europe still think that's important, and that it needs a credible military force to accomplish it. Russia's actions in Georgia and Ukraine do not give warm feelings of security to small countries on Russia's periphery.

remarkEon 5y ago
NATO was not created to protect Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Those countries were part of Soviet Union at the time, and joined after its collapse.

astine 5y ago

">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." And this gives Russia permission to invade a sovereign nation? Ukraine's independence is not just a matter of the Budapest Memorandum, it's a matter of the wishes of the Ukrainian people who have wanted independence from Russia for centuries, something many Russians don't want to acknowledge. So far, NATO has not invaded Russia or violated its territorial sovereignty but Russia has violated the borders of multiple boarder states, so it's a bit rich for Putin to complain about NATO when he's clearly just trying to reincorporate border states that were conquered by the Tzars.